{ "attachments": [], "comments_archived": true, "date": "2003-04-16T20:40:41.000Z", "layout": "post", "title": "OPML vs OML - Fork but don't fight!", "wordpress_id": 404, "wordpress_slug": "opml-vs-oml", "wordpress_url": "http://www.decafbad.com/blog/?p=404", "year": "2003", "month": "04", "day": "16", "isDir": false, "slug": "opml-vs-oml", "type": "entry", "postName": "2003-04-16-opml-vs-oml", "html": "

In my intermittent online presence, I've been happily watching Dave Winer's\nramp-up with OPML toward OSCON with things like \n\"How to implement an OPML directory browser\".\nI love outliners, and though it's been a little while since I played with Radio, I loved Instant Outlining\nand the transclusion of outside outlines into the\none at hand via URL. And when Dave first introduced the idea of an OPML-based distributed web directory,\nI figured it was the start of another nifty twist in the web fabric. (You know, the kind that makes wrinkles?\nThe kind of wrinkles that make brains smarter?)

\n

Anyway, even given all this, OPML has always bugged me, and I'm not alone. In fact, today I found a\nlink to OML, the Outline Markup Language project on ?SourceForge,\nwhich seems to seek to address many of the same things that have bugged me. That is, things like\nUserLand application-specific tags, and extension via arbitrary attributes. Though I'm no master\nof deep XML magic, these things struck me as grungy.

\n

But you know, we're designing for recombinant growth with the lazyweb here\n(or at least, Dave Winer was and is), and OPML looks like one of those dirty things that got\nthrown together quickly in order to enable a laundry list of further projects. It works, isn't\nall that hard to grasp, and has gotten adopted quickly. There's momentum there. As \nDave says, there is no wait for\ntools.

\n

So, now there's also OML starting. Hopefully this won't become another rehash of the RSS fight.
Because, I sense many similar issues between the two. Maybe it would have been better still if OML had been named something\ncompletely avoiding the letters O, P, M, or L. I already see mailing list charters being called out in order to quiet unwanted\ndiscussion of fundamentals, but, hopefully we can avoid anyone claiming that they have the One True Format, all fighting for the\nsame name and slapping each other around with version numbers. Gah.

\n

Anyway. I like OML but see some grunge in it as well. At the moment, I'm using an OPML-supporting tool. I can't imagine that\nconversion would be more than an XSLT file away. Well, maybe more than that. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree and viva le\nfork. Let the best, most demonstratably capable format win. Meanwhile, I'm still considering that Tinderbox license to see if I\nmight like multi-dimensional outlining...

\n\n\n\n

shortname=opml_vs_oml

\n

Archived Comments

\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n", "body": "In my intermittent online presence, I've been happily watching Dave Winer's\r\nramp-up with OPML toward OSCON with things like \r\n\"How to implement an OPML directory browser\".\r\nI love outliners, and though it's been a little while since I played with Radio, I loved Instant Outlining\r\nand the transclusion of outside outlines into the\r\none at hand via URL. And when Dave first introduced the idea of an OPML-based distributed web directory,\r\nI figured it was the start of another nifty twist in the web fabric. (You know, the kind that makes wrinkles?\r\nThe kind of wrinkles that make brains smarter?)\r\n

\r\nAnyway, even given all this, OPML has always bugged me, and I'm not alone. In fact, today I found a\r\nlink to OML, the Outline Markup Language project on ?SourceForge,\r\nwhich seems to seek to address many of the same things that have bugged me. That is, things like\r\nUserLand application-specific tags, and extension via arbitrary attributes. Though I'm no master\r\nof deep XML magic, these things struck me as grungy.\r\n

\r\nBut you know, we're designing for recombinant growth with the lazyweb here\r\n(or at least, Dave Winer was and is), and OPML looks like one of those dirty things that got\r\nthrown together quickly in order to enable a laundry list of further projects. It works, isn't\r\nall that hard to grasp, and has gotten adopted quickly. There's momentum there. As \r\nDave says, there is no wait for\r\ntools.\r\n

\r\nSo, now there's also OML starting. Hopefully this won't become another rehash of the RSS fight. \r\nBecause, I sense many similar issues between the two. Maybe it would have been better still if OML had been named something\r\ncompletely avoiding the letters O, P, M, or L. I already see mailing list charters being called out in order to quiet unwanted\r\ndiscussion of fundamentals, but, hopefully we can avoid anyone claiming that they have the One True Format, all fighting for the\r\nsame name and slapping each other around with version numbers. Gah.\r\n

\r\nAnyway. I like OML but see some grunge in it as well. At the moment, I'm using an OPML-supporting tool. I can't imagine that\r\nconversion would be more than an XSLT file away. Well, maybe more than that. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree and viva le\r\nfork. Let the best, most demonstratably capable format win. Meanwhile, I'm still considering that Tinderbox license to see if I\r\nmight like multi-dimensional outlining...\r\n\r\nshortname=opml_vs_oml\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Archived Comments

\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n ", "parentPath": "./content/posts/archives/2003", "path": "2003/04/16/opml-vs-oml", "summary": "In my intermittent online presence, I've been happily watching Dave Winer's\nramp-up with OPML toward OSCON with things like \n\"How to implement an OPML directory browser\".\nI love outliners, and though it's been a little while since I played with Radio, I loved Instant Outlining\nand the transclusion of outside outlines into the\none at hand via URL. And when Dave first introduced the idea of an OPML-based distributed web directory,\nI figured it was the start of another nifty twist in the web fabric. (You know, the kind that makes wrinkles?\nThe kind of wrinkles that make brains smarter?)\nAnyway, even given all this, OPML has always bugged me, and I'm not alone. In fact, today I found a\nlink to OML, the Outline Markup Language project on ?SourceForge,\nwhich seems to seek to address many of the same things that have bugged me. That is, things like\nUserLand application-specific tags, and extension via arbitrary attributes. Though I'm no master\nof deep XML magic, these things struck me as grungy.\nBut you know, we're designing for recombinant growth with the lazyweb here\n(or at least, Dave Winer was and is), and OPML looks like one of those dirty things that got\nthrown together quickly in order to enable a laundry list of further projects. It works, isn't\nall that hard to grasp, and has gotten adopted quickly. There's momentum there. As \nDave says, there is no wait for\ntools.\nSo, now there's also OML starting. Hopefully this won't become another rehash of the RSS fight.Because, I sense many similar issues between the two. Maybe it would have been better still if OML had been named something\ncompletely avoiding the letters O, P, M, or L. I already see mailing list charters being called out in order to quiet unwanted\ndiscussion of fundamentals, but, hopefully we can avoid anyone claiming that they have the One True Format, all fighting for the\nsame name and slapping each other around with version numbers. Gah.\nAnyway. I like OML but see some grunge in it as well. At the moment, I'm using an OPML-supporting tool. I can't imagine that\nconversion would be more than an XSLT file away. Well, maybe more than that. Beyond that, let's agree to disagree and viva le\nfork. Let the best, most demonstratably capable format win. Meanwhile, I'm still considering that Tinderbox license to see if I\nmight like multi-dimensional outlining...", "needsBuild": true, "prevPostPath": "2003/04/15/safari-tabs", "prevPostTitle": "Safari has tabs now, but I've changed my mind.", "nextPostPath": "2003/04/21/down-and-out", "nextPostTitle": "Further Bitchun Reading..." }