RE: [xml-dev] Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

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. 
 
How? 
 
-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
There is nothing more satisfying that having someone take a shot at you, and miss. 

________________________________

From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@dpawson.co.uk]
Sent: Sun 11/14/2004 1:32 AM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Cc: Michael Champion; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Bits vs APIS - was Excellent Insight on StandardsDevelopment vs Invention



On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 21:46, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

 With RSS 0.91/2.0 & RSS 1.0, a feed consumer could write fairly
straightforward code to parse either format with just a few if...else
blocks to deal with the minor differences (e.g. in RSS 1.0 the <item>
elements are not a child of <channel>). Now with adding Atom 0.3 and
then Atom 1.0 to the mix, it is more likely that a syndication consumer
would just want some API that hides the syntactical variaations of all
the various XML syndication formats instead of dealing with each one
individually using an XML API.

If authors would stick to either of the schema's that would be a valid
statement Dare. By the time I got up to about 10 feeds, the XSLT is
becoming really horrible, and needs to be namespace agnostic.

The number of variations on a theme made reasonable processing with xslt
just about impossible. Hence I was hopeful of a schema for Atom.



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