Winer-bashing

Dive Winer said yesterday:

I finally got a chance to read the WSJ article about RSS. They gave me authorship credit for the format, appropriately. I know how long they worked on the story, so it's much appreciated. The Guardian, in a deeply flawed article, said something very different about the origins of RSS. One wonders how they would react if I claimed to write an article of theirs that made a big difference in the world. You launch so many ideas, when one succeeds, it's nice to get credit for it. [Scripting News]

However, it seems to be accepted by a very large number of people that the real facts are these:

RSS 0.91
The version documented in this section is based on the Userland document of April 2000 (currently found at http://backend.userland.com/rss091). Its author, Dave Winer, did not invent any new practices with this specification, but he did codify RSS in a far more precise way than the Netscape original (at http://my.netscape.com/ publish/formats/rss-spec-0.91.html), based on common practice at the time. Primarily, the new codification imposed limits on the number of characters allowed within each element. The only major difference between the Userland spec and the original Netscape write-up is that the Userland version lacks a document type definition (DTD) declaration. [PerfectXML]

Since the docs are all public, it's hard to see how that analysis could be too far off. Or as Mark Pilgrim puts it:

In June of 2000, Userland took Netscape’s RSS specification, removed Netscape’s copyright statement, made several incompatible changes, added a Userland copyright statement, called it RSS 0.91, and claimed that it was compatible with Netscape’s RSS 0.91. [Dive Into Mark]

I just thought these quotes were an interesting juxtaposition.

Update: Dave left a comment pointing to this page. If you're interested in this chain of events, it's worth a look. It points out that Dave contributed to Netscape's spec, which seems to make Mark's comments a bit unfair. On the other hand, it seems like a stretch for Dave to claim "authorship" on his blog. According to the link Dave supplies, the .91 spec was, in effect, a collaboration with some folks at Netscape. It says that the original .91 spec was in fact written by Dan Libby of Netscape, and included suggestions from Dave. This is the document Mark is referring to, and which was followed by a modified version from Userland bearing Userland's copyright. Given the facts spelled out above, I wonder where the WSJ reporter got the idea to say "The RSS format was developed in 1999 by David Winer, a software entrepreneur who is currently a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School?"

Giving Dave the benefit of the doubt, it sounds like he may feel he's the spiritual author of RSS, and if so, perhaps sees no need to give anyone else credit when he talks informally about it. If in fact he is the spiritual author, then I think he has a point. But in that case he needs to explain his case more clearly so that it doesn't sound so often like he's simply laying claim to something that isn't really his, as Mark seems to be assuming he is doing.

It would be helpful for the ultimate sources of each of the ideas in the RSS .91 spec copyrighted by Userland to be spelled out in more detail, so that the community has a clear way of knowing whether Dave or those who would put the credit elsewhere are more correct. One could certainly say "who cares?" But IMHO it would be worth the effort, because there is so much enmity in the RSS-Atom universe now. Anything that helps put a more positive light on the history could help dispel that enmity and perhaps make it easier for the various parties to work together, which could have a positive impact on the industry.

Comments

[Dave Winer]

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssVersionHistory