[syndication] Re: Sharing discussion area info

[Dan Lyke <danlyke@flutterby.com>]

Aaron Swartz writes:
> 1) You may be better off talking about the Flutterby entry and
> mentioning that it references a certain number of URIs, rather than
> mentioning the URIs and referencing the Flutterby entry.

The only place the Perl XML::RSS module documents multiple entries is
at the "item" level, so I decided that the right way to handle this
(once my CMS expands to know about mulitple "primary" links in an
entry) is with multiple "item" entries.

> 2) When you talk about URIs in RDF, it's best to use the following syntax:
> 
> <discuss:url rdf:resource="http://example.org"; />

Hmmm... Seems like I should just ditch the whole XML::RSS module then,
and just whip up something designed the way I'd do it that avoids the
whole legacy of the RSS stuff, 'cause it seems to be doing nothing for
me. This was implemented entirely with their examples, in the hopes
that I could avoid all the future

> We've had some plans for a discussion module (which I feel is really
> important) but they haven't developed too far. If you'd like to join
> RSS-DEV and help us hash it out, it'd be really appreciated.

Maybe I'm just pissy this evening (and there's a good chance of that),
but...

Is anybody actually playing with and testing stuff? I've avoided the
whole standards discussion thing because I'm subscribed to way too
many standards mailing lists where lots of "this would be a good
feature to have" gets bandied about but nobody ever actually gets
anything done.

I'm guilty of this, I've still got to get my portion of the
publish/subscribe stuff up and running, but RSS .9whatever succeeded
'cause Netscape said "write this file and we'll republish it". And
yes, they subsequently screwed with the standards, and broke stuff,
and out of the blue sent "your RDF file isn't compliant" when it was
yesterday, but since it was one piddling little automagically
generated file it wasn't really a problem to keep up with the 3 or 4
versions I eventually had to make.

And I've had way too many "dude, that would be so cool" but then
nothing happens experiences.

If someone wants to publish their discussion forum info, I'll
implement reading it, but I've got enough of a backlog of code that
I'm much more interested in programming than adding yet more email to
my daily "scan and delete" routine.

(I mean, yeesh, it's 20:56 local time on a Saturday night. This says
right there that my priorities are all ready pretty horked.)

Dan