Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: rss regularis(z)ation
 Danny Ayers wrote: > Some cleavage : > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/NamespaceDiscussion Is that cleavage a joining or a coming apart? > Note that the namespace cleavage has only appeared in this "simple" branch. It seems that elsewhere technical judgement was suspended insofar as namespaces were accepted without much thought (that wiki being another place where I'm waiting for a good argument pro namespaces). At least I haven't seen any explicit consensus pro XML Namespaces doe Atom. So I guess that page doesn't really have any influence on Atom syntax. What matters are the current test feeds (which to the man are namespaced), the blogs that filter the wiki noise, if you can call it a wiki, and the opinion of maybe 20-40 people, yourself and a few other on this list included. I may yet have to hack Perl... > The RSS 1.0 branch uses namespaces extensively even for relatively simple > feeds, using standard terms like those of Dublin Core. There it just > works... RSS1.0 uses XML Namespaces to tunnel URIs through XML for the benefit of RDF. Does the XML serialization really 'just work'? > I wouldn't characterise those as much aspects of RSS practice, rather of > certain practitioners. I don't think the CDATA stuff is quite as bizarre as > it seems - the motivation is to use HTML markup for content, but without > namespaces and XHTML this leads to a bit of a mess. It sanctions sloppy production of markup Danny. That's the real world use case for RSS CDATA. The lack of namespaces and XHTML has nothing to do with it. You can make the effort tidy your HTML to XML - it's not that hard and cheapest overall when the producer does it instead of the consumer. Worst of all CDATA tunneling plays into the hands of legacy HTML engines with code bases dedicated to rendering gorp no matter - gorp rendition raises the bar greatly for an RSS client. Saying producing sloppy syntax isn't a bizarre need is no different to saying producing sloppy semantics isn't a bizarre need. > there has been a continuous tug-of-war between developers that want > to do things as 'properly' as possible and those that want things to be as > 'simple' as possible. But we shouldn't confuse simple with simplistic. > There probably wouldn't have been any conflict if > 'simple' hadn't used underspecification as a tool. +1 > The 'properly's have > often frightened the 'simple's when talking about standards, namespaces and > so on, and now the 'properly's are moving on with Atom. Meanwhile the > 'simple' RSS 2.0 wagons have circled around some good stuff but also quite a > lot of garbage. Not really. RSS users are understanding that 'simple' should mean simple - not technical debt, not deferred costs, not crapping on the next guy. Bill de hÓra 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
