[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight onStandardsDevelopmen

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight onStandardsDevelopment vs Invention
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:12:03 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102767115@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102767115@R...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 10:14, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I don't understand your statement. So you're saying that the XSLT for processing 
> the fairly straightforward RSS 0.91/2.0 and RSS 1.0 formats was geting 
> too complex but you were hoping adding a third [actually fourth when you consider Atom 0.3 and Atom 1.0] 
> format which is more complex than either would somehow make things better. 

No, not the format; the way its implemented. 
Of the feeds I selected, it was rare to find two that had identical
semantic markup.

It seemed to me that people looked elsewhere, chose what seemed
appropriate and used the elements. namespaces were ignored, varied etc.
The biggest problem was the unpredictability.

I only took too atom feeds, so that's not really informative. They were
0.3, and valid IIRC.


regards DaveP




>  
-- 
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook  FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl

• References:
  • RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention
• Next by Date: Re: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight onStandardsDevelopment vs Invention
• Previous by thread: RE: Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread