[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yeah, that's what I meant in my previous response about "other ways to
do it". Plenty of systems handle versioning and change tracking without
embedding all sorts of different metadata fields inside the document.
As long as you have a way to uniquely identify an item, then the rest of
it is a standard versioning problem. I would argue that users are
better served when they have a unique ID for all items, and can version
it from the client however the client sees fit, rather than buying into
a whole new taxonomy of "first draft", "posted", "published", ad
nauseum.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dwiner@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:54 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; bob@wyman.us; Joshua Allen; Michael Champion; XML
DEV
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
>
> The goal is to not repeat an item if it's already appeared. That's the
> problem Wyman said RSS can't address. It can and does. Dave
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
> To: "Dave Winer" <dwiner@cyber.law.harvard.edu>; <bob@wyman.us>;
"Joshua
> Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>; "Michael Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>;
"XML
> DEV" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 3:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
>
>
> > Uniquely identifying items and telling if an item is changed are
> > orthogonal problems. I fail to see why you think they are related
unless
> > you are suggesting that an items ID should be changed every time it
is
> > updated which has its own set of problems.
> >
> > --
> > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> > A day off is usually followed by an off day.
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dwiner@cyber.law.harvard.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:39 AM
> > To: Dare Obasanjo; bob@wyman.us; Joshua Allen; Michael Champion; XML
DEV
> > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> >
> > I've been lurking on this thread for too long.
> >
> > RSS 2.0 has an element which is designed to neatly solve the problem
> > that Bob Wyman is saying RSS 2.0 doesn't have a solution for.
> >
> > http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/permalinksNewsAggregators
> >
> > One bit of advice to you all: RTFM.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
> > To: <bob@wyman.us>; "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>; "Michael
> > Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>; "XML DEV" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:12 PM
> > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps I have trouble understanding your point because you aren't
> > illustrating it clearly. You claim that people complain because
posts
> > with
> > dates like "August-2003" appear as new. Considering that that was
about
> > 6
> > months ago I concluded that either you have buggy code or like my
toy
> > RSS
> > aggregator when you see dates in weird formats like "August-2003"
you
> > fail
> > to parse them and use the current date.
> > >
> > > Having a publication date and a last updated date would be
goodness.
> > It is
> > annoying that the various flavors of RSS have only one date field
for
> > items
> > and it is optional. On the other hand, I think having 3 dates as
ATOM
> > does
> > is bordering on the ridiculous.
> > >
> > > --
> > > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> > > Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40%
> > inheritance tax.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us]
> > > Sent: Tue 2/3/2004 8:48 AM
> > > To: Dare Obasanjo; Joshua Allen; 'Michael Champion'; 'XML DEV'
> > > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > > >It seems you are complaining about people using invalid date
formats
> > > No. Your comment is a complete distortion of what I wrote. The
> > > issue is that RSS only provides for one date (pubDate) which is
> > > typically used to indicate an item's "creation date". When an item
is
> > > updated, it is typically published with its "creation date" -- not
the
> > > date that it was last modified. So, users get entries that appear
to
> > > be "old" even when they are "new." This confuses them. The issue
here
> > > has *nothing* to do with data format -- it is a question of
semantics,
> > > not syntax.
> > > I find it somewhat telling that the author of one of the
better
> > > RSS aggregators would have trouble understanding this point. This
is
> > > clearly an illustration of the problems and confusions that can
result
> > > from a format as poorly specified as RSS.
> > >
> > > > The main problem with dates in the major RSS specs
> > > > is that they are optional.
> > > Optionality is an issue which is completely orthogonal to
the
> > > understanding of those dates that *are* present. If the meaning of
a
> > > date is ambiguous, it doesn't much matter if it is present or not.
> > >
> > > bob wyman
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 2:28 AM
> > > To: bob@wyman.us; Joshua Allen; Michael Champion; XML DEV
> > > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> > >
> > >
> > > The main problem with dates in the major RSS specs is that they
are
> > > optional. It seems you are complaining about people using invalid
> > > date formats which have nothing to do with the specs given that
both
> > > major flavors of RSS have well-defined descriptions of what valid
> > > dates look like.
> > >
> > > --
> > > PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
> > > Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40%
> > > inheritance tax.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us]
> > > Sent: Mon 2/2/2004 2:24 PM
> > > To: Joshua Allen; 'Michael Champion'; 'XML DEV'
> > > Subject: RE: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Joshua Allen wrote:
> > > >> original creation. (Atom defines both "created" date and
"issued"
> > > >> date. This allows the distinction to be made.)
> > > > Great, a techie feature. My grandmother certainly didn't ask
for
> > > that one.
> > > Well, other people's grandmothers *did*. Every day I get
mail
> > > from someone asking: "Why are you telling me that this entry which
is
> > > dated "August-2003" is "New"? How stupid is your code that it
can't
> > > read a date!"
> > > The lack of metadata in RSS confuses users more than it
> > > confuses us.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> > >
> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > >
|
