About RSS as a format

There’s a new set of discussions around the evolution of RSS.

Just a quick comment from the consumer side: Are you guys aware of what you’re doing at all? There may be a reason to have a well-designed syndication format, but please tell me why I need to care? So far, what you have done has resulted in this: where we had the orange XML button in the beginnning, we now have three to five different URLs that basically link to the same kind of data. Most people reading blogs neither know of or care about the difference between them – they just want a feed to include into whatever reader application.

Can we get back to *one* link, please? You do what you want below that, OK?

Why XML signatures suck

This points to a well written analysis on what’s wrong with XML signatures.

“Imagine how this would end up in court: “Your honour,
although the plaintiff claims we signed this, we have 39 differently-
canonicalised forms that show we didn’t, 18 different namespace types that
prove the plaintiff is in fact at fault and not us, 7 applications of DTDs
that show beyond a doubt that they owe us the amount they’re claiming, and
four schemas whose use will clearly show that we have rights to their house
and car as well”.”

Add the european signature law, and this gets just plain unusable. The demand for a viewer that enforces “what you see is what you sign” is quite hard to satisfy.

I’d actually like to see a case like this in court, to be able to point out to standards committees and law makers alike how crazy this all is. If you want to know why digital signatures still haven’t caught on, this is a good example.