Re: [syndication] Re: Ads in RSS

[Dan Lyke <danlyke@flutterby.com>]

Jim Winstead writes:
> rss 0.92 isn't just about summaries. and the spec clearly says
> that entity-encoded html is allowed in the description.
> 
> http://backend.userland.com/rss092#allSubelementsOfLtitemgtAreOptional

Ow. Okay, I retract any nice thing I may have said about the designers
of RSS .92.

> title and link aren't even required in 0.92, which makes it a
> reasonable format for syndicating diary-style-weblog content.

I can actually think of a whole lot of reasons to avoid title and link
in an entry, that makes perfect sense to me.

>   http://doc.weblogs.com/xml/rss.xml

Eeewww. Eeewww. Get it off me! Get it off!

(Interestingly, that file's header identifies it as .91...)

> heck, there's even sites that don't encode the html:
>   http://www.theregister.co.uk/tonys/slashdot.rdf

Okay, that's just so far over the top it's not even worth considering,
'cause it sure ain't XML.

Gross. Wow. That whole experience makes me want to wash my hands of
the whole RSS thing and pull down any feeds that might implicate me as
a potential collaborator.

I stand corrected. I'll be leaving now to take a shower to wash away
the ickyness. I mean, why even bother with XML if you're going to do
stuff like that? We'd be far better off with "<div>" blocks in the
HTML.

Dan