[
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.
Yep, but both result in material that can (usually) just be rendered for
human consumption, and the markup is of minimal use for further processing.
Electronic newspapers, but not much more.
> > 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.
Bill de hÓra:
> 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,
As Bill Kearney suggests, in practice with RSS this isn't so much of an
issue. There are only maybe 1/2 dozen RSS 2.0 extensions, RSS 1.0 has decent
extension support through RDF. But quality modularisation does need more
than namespaces, and is certainly something that needs looking at for
syndication to get more sophisticated. It is being looked at in the context
of Atom, see :
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg00000.html
Cheers,
Danny.
|
