[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> I think that RSS as practiced has the key properties that power XML --
> elements, attributes, and text, deliniated with simple markup. IMHO
> it's the "self-describing" element tags and embedded metadata
> attribute-value pairs that seem to give the SGML-derived languages like
> HTML and RSS their real power in non-geek communities.... enabled by
> people doing a View Source and using what they see as a template for
> what they want. It's also interesting that both HTML and RSS products
> are notoriously non-draconian in practice.
> Also, RSS should be a poster child for XML namespaces, because everyone
> and his dog wants to extend it but keep the core syntax / semantics.
Show me how to extend RSS with XML namespaces. I claim you can't.
Look, seriously. Everyone and his dog wants to use RSS to /carry/
their vocabulary, not extend RSS. That's a world of difference,
Everyone (maybe not the dog) believes the way to do that is to XML
namespace the vocab and use RSS as the common carrier. That's not
extensbility, that's SOAP. In that sense namespaces are just a weird
hack for doing PIs or switch control variables (what's that tag -
it's a globally unique frobinizer - hey I have a binding for that).
By the way, I believe if anything should have been the poster child
for XML namespaces it was RDF/XML which /really/ has a need to bind
element names to URIs. You'd be hard pushed to call that a poster
child tho'.
Bill de hÓra
|
