|
|
|
|
|
Welcome, |
Importers - Exporters - Suppliers - Manufacturers Business Directory Online |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Global B2B Business Directory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
History of RSS
TradeXpro - History of RSS
RSS was first invented by Netscape. They wanted to use an XML
format to distribute news, stories and information. Netscape refined the version
of rss and then dropped it. Userland Software to control of the specficiation
and continued to develop it releasing a newer version. A non-commercial group
picked up RSS at the same time and based on their interpretation of the
Netscape's original concept of RSS they too released a new version. UserLand was
not happy with the non-commercial version and continued development of their own
version of RSS (Really Simple Syndication), eventually UserLand released RSS v2.
Another View of the History of RSS
What is the history of RSS?
The history of RSS can be traced back to 1997, and the creation of Resource Description Framework. Resource Description Framework is also known as RDF. RDF was created by a man named, Ramanathan V. Guha. RDF is similar to RSS.
The mark up language RDF, was used to store
metadata. Metadata is basically information about information, for example if
there is an article or a news report, the metadata would be the author, the
language, the copyright and all of the information related to the article or
news report. In 1999 Netscape created a standard named RSS version 0.90. This
was the beginning of RSS as we know it today. Dan Libby, an employee of Netscape
improved version 0.90 and released RSS version 0.91. Dave Winer, an employee at
Userland also created a new version of RSS. He too named it, RSS version 0.91,
creating confusion, because the two versions of RSS were named the same but the
specifications were slightly different. Unfortunately this was the beginning of
a trend.
Netscape's RSS team abandoned RSS development,
because it was dubbed too complicated for what they were trying to accomplish.
Meanwhile Rael Dornfest at O'Reily released RSS version 1.0. The new
specification by O'Reily was based on the RDF standard rather than the previous
versions of RSS. RSS 1.0 was incompatible with previous RSS versions. The
specification caused significant marketplace confusion because though RSS 1.0
had the same purpose as the 0.90 series, the specifications were very different.
In an attempt to minimize further confusion Userland named their next release
RSS version 2.0. RSS 2.0 is very similar to the 0.9 series and is generally
considered compatible, while RSS Version 1.0 remains very different.
Harvard Law accepted responsibility for the RSS
2.0 specification because Dave Winer of Userland, found that competitors were
leary of using the standard he had a hand in creating. In order for the
specification to be endorsed by all it was donated to a non-commercial third
party, Harvard Law school. Harvard Law is now responsible for the future
development of the RSS 2.0 specification. What is XML? XML or eXtensible Markup
Language is a mark up language.
RSS History
There are a lot of folk legends about the evolution of
RSS.
Here's the scoop, the sequence of events in the life
of RSS, as told by the designer of most of the formats.
1. scriptingNews format, designed by DW at UserLand. 12/27/97.
2. RSS 0.90, designed by Netscape, for use with my.netscape.com, which also supported scriptingNews format. The only thing about it that was RDF was the header, otherwise it was plain garden-variety XML. 3/15/99.
3. scriptingNews 2.0b1, designed by DW at UserLand, enhanced to include all the features in RSS 0.90. Privately DW urged Netscape to adopt the features in this format that weren't present in RSS 0.90. 6/15/99.
4. RSS 0.91, designed by Netscape, spec written by Dan Libby, includes most features from scriptingNews 2.0b1. "We're trying to move towards a more standard format, and to this end we have included several tags from the popular
format." The RDF header is gone. 7/10/99.
5. UserLand adopts RSS 0.91, deprecates scriptingNews formats. 7/28/99.
6. The RSS team at Netscape evaporates.
7. UserLand's RSS 0.91 specification. 6/4/00.
8. RSS 1.0 published as a proposal, worked on in private by a group led by Rael Dornfest at O'Reilly. Based on RDF and uses namespaces. Most elements of previous formats moved into modules. Like 0.90 it has an RDF header, but otherwise is a brand-new format, not related to any previous format. 8/14/00.
9. RSS 0.92, which is 0.91 with optional elements, designed by DW at UserLand. 12/25/00.
10. RSS 0.93 discussed but never deployed. 4/20/01.
11. MetaWeblog API merges RSS 0.92 with XML-RPC to provide a powerful blogging API. 3/14/02.
12. RSS 2.0, which is 0.92 with optional elements, designed by DW, after leaving UserLand. MetaWeblog API updated for RSS 2.0. While in development, this format was called 0.94. 9/18/02.
13. RSS 2.0 spec released through Harvard under a Creative Commons license. 7/15/03.
On July 15, 2003, UserLand Software transferred ownership of
its RSS 2.0 specification to the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard Law School.
UserLand is a leading developer of tools that produce and
consume RSS, and originator of the RSS 2.0 specification. The specification,
which was previously copyrighted, is now licensed under terms that allow it to
be customized, excerpted and republished, using the Creative Commons
Attribution/Share Alike license.
The UserLand disclaimer and copyright is archived on the
Harvard website; however it now no longer applies to the RSS 2.0 specification.
Since UserLand specifically disclaimed ownership of the format that the
specification describes, no transfer took place on the format itself.
An independent advisory board has been formed to broaden the
public understanding of the uses and benefits of RSS, and to guide developers
who create RSS applications. The initial members of the board are Dave Winer,
Berkman fellow and author of the RSS 2.0 spec; Jon Udell, lead analyst for
InfoWorld and columnist for the O'Reilly Network; and Brent Simmons of Ranchero
Software, author of NetNewsWire, a leading RSS-based application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
