From: Dan Brickley (Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 09:50:19 PDT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> Sorry, I missed the context of your original post re CDF. I don't know the
> answer, but no one raised the question when RSS 0.91 came out, as far as I
> know. It seems that was the point in time to do it.
I'm asking now.
> Now here's my memory of CDF. It was a static site description format,
> proposed by Microsoft in response to work Netscape was doing with Marimba.
Remind me... what specific technical features makes CDF 'static', while
RSS0.91 and scriptingNews are (presumably) 'dynamic'?
What *exactly* does RSS0.91/scriptingNews do that makes it
interestingly, innovatively, stealably different to this 'static' format?:
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
[[
The Channel Definition Format is an open specification that permits a
web publisher to offer frequently updated collections of information, or
channels, from any web server for automatic delivery to compatible
receiver programs on PCs or other information appliances.
Automatic means that the user need only choose the channel once, and
thereafter, scheduled deliveries of information to the client will occur
without further user intervention.
The CDF contains the following major elements:
Channel - defined a channel
Item - defines a channel item, a unit of information which is available form a channel
UserSchedule - reference to a client/user specified schedule
Schedule - defines a particular schedule
Logo - defines an image to represent a channel or channel item
Tracking - defines user tracking parameters of a channel
CategoyDef - defines a category, possibly as a child category of another category
]]
> I was at the press conf in 1997 where they rolled it out, and since Kim
> Polese was a friend of mine, I felt bad that she wasn't on stage with all
> her competitors. It made me feel pretty sick.
>
> A similar thing is going on here, of course. ;->
Of course.
Dan
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
> To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>; "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
>
>
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > In http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> >
> > you say:
> > [[
> > Recently I have had a standard that I co-authored stolen by a big name,
> > totally brazen, and I've said Fuck This many times in the
> > last few weeks, and it hasn't done any good.
> > ]]
> >
> > To be clear, are you claiming that OReilly (plus various of their naive
> > pawns such as myself) have stolen RSS, and that you're a co-author of the
> > intellectual work that was stolen?
> >
> > If that's the case, please circulate to FoRK a list of technical
> > innovations in "your" RSS v0.91 that are anything more than trivial
> > elaborations on the 9th March 1997 Channel Definition Format
> > (CDF) specification, as submitted by Microsoft to the W3C,
> > http://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/2/Overview.html
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
> >
> > Accusations of theft are a big deal. We should help you get to the
> > bottom of this...
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> >
> > > This is the kind of threatening email I get from Tim O'Reilly. One of
> dozens
> > > I've received over the years. I've warned Tim over and over, that if he
> > > wants to make threats, make them in public for all to see.
> > >
> > > They are serious integrity issues at O'Reilly. I've been emailing
> privately
> > > with Dave Sims and Andy Oram at O'Reilly about them. They are involved
> in a
> > > corporate way on RSS. They've run ads, had corporate officers doing
> > > "journalism" where only their side was presented. They worked in private
> on
> > > a public spec, and then presented it as a fait accompli, on their
> corporate
> > > website. The line betw journalism and corporate affairs at O'Reilly is
> > > pretty murky. That Tim claims that O'Reilly is not involved in RSS at a
> > > corporate level is a ludicrous thing.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what's going on over there, but Tim is one of the most
> > > personally offensive people I've ever met in the software industry, in
> over
> > > 25 years. I'm tired of receiving these private threats. Tim, the ball's
> in
> > > your court, do your best to smear me. And at the same time let's take a
> deep
> > > hard look at exactly what O'Reilly is versus what you say it is.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > > To: <dave@userland.com>
> > > Cc: "tim" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 7:43 AM
> > > Subject: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dave,
> > > >
> > > > I've told you again and again that your conflict over RSS is not an
> > > > O'Reilly thing, as have the participants, yet you keep making the
> > > > accusation. When we exclude you from things in future, just make a
> note
> > > > of this as the reason why. And be sure that I will do the same. I'm
> > > > assembling a list of all the false claims you've made against us, and
> at
> > > > some point, if you keep this up, it will be published as an expose.
> > > >
> > > > When people see both sides, you will lose even more credibility than
> you
> > > > have already. You're lucky that I haven't been waging the kind of PR
> > > > campaign against you that you've been waging against us.
> > > >
> > > > Now, you might say that O'Reilly wasn't mentioned by name here. But
> > > > it's clear enough who you mean, and as a result, someone outside the
> > > > conflict forwarded the message to me.
> > > >
> > > > Please stop. Or I'll go public on what you're doing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> > > > 101 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472
> > > > +1 707-829-0515, FAX +1 707-829-0104
> > > > tim@oreilly.com, http://www.oreilly.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 09:54:55 PDT