Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Michael Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"XML DEV" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:42:13 -0800
- Thread-index: AcPp0Azn2D712u4FQKiyAMKFt2EpnQABQ5Jg
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
>From: Michael Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:02 PM
>To: XML DEV
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
>On Feb 2, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Is RSS 2.0 push or pull? If pull,
>> it's the safe bet.
>Well, the whole point of RSS 2.0 [obligatory disclaimer -- I
>stay close enough to the food fight to be entertained, but not
>close enough to get dirty, so I may be missing something] was
>to support namespaces so that arbitrary extensions were
>possible. I have no idea whether those extensions were geek
>push or customer pull, but it inevitably ran afoul of the
>"namespace thread virus," which led to a new round of the food
>fight, which led to Atom.
One of the more common requests for RSS feeds is that they support
better interaction with comments. Namespaced extensions are used to
solve this in RSS 2.0 in ways that many of my users have liked and have
made it into other aggregators like SharpReader.
The ability to go above and beyond the base syndication specs (here I
lump in ATOM, RSS 2.0, RSS 1.0, etc) is based on customer demand.
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
The heaviest burden a man can carry is a chip on his shoulder.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no