why (n)echo?. I've been reading plenty of angry comments from developers and other stakeholders in the rss/(n)echo debate. If you think people are pissed about my commercial view of weblogs and syndication by paying for feed placement, just wait to see how pissed off everyone will be when microsoft and ibm start spending millions to 'own' these formats and make developers their bitch with lock-in tactics.
ofcourse I don't want to stifle 'progress', I just don't see the need for a competing format that does everything rss already does for me. perhaps someone will take the time to explain to the users what the differences are and benefits of a new format. To me it only appears to errode the infrastructure I have helped build over the past 3 years.
I've promoted RSS and invested in the format, used it and evangelized it. I see rss and xml icons everywhere. It works just fine.
I beg for explanation, in simple terms, why do I need (n)echo? [Adam Curry: Adam Curry's Weblog]
1. Semantic blogging. Please go check out what Matt and Paolo did with k-collector. They haven't really been supported by Userland, Dave or you for that matter - but they did it anyway - since it was needed. Echo supports namespace extensions like ENT and will promote the idea of embedded meta-data.
2. Combine data structure and API into one thing. This will enable folks to move their blog info - from Radio (for instance) to Moveable Type or TypePad.
3. Something besides blogging. Photos, Reviews, Conversations, audio, video - people.
Do I have to continue? is that enough?
Digital Domesday Defies Doom
