Re: [syndication] Re: [radio-userland] First 24 hours completed

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

Rael and Julian, RSS 0.92 simply mirrors practice. Often in weblog sites
there is no link and title. So 0.92 reflects that. Rael, sorry, it's not a
"return to scriptingNews" format. Have a look at the spec, you'll see a lot
of innovation there. Have a nice day. Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 5:01 AM
Subject: RE: [syndication] Re: [radio-userland] First 24 hours completed


> Howdy,
>
> 0.92 seems a return to scriptingNews format, with HTML being embedded into
> the description in lieu of a title or link.  This is why 0.9x has been
> dubbed "upward-compatible" rather than backward-compatible.
>
> Since title and link are the two fields most likely to be used by
> aggregators, not only for display but for uniqueness, this does indeed
> present a problem and they're likely to simply chuck the items out.  While
> of course databases could be trained to index on description too, this is
a
> huge key to maintain and an awful waste of resources.
>
> While I know what Dave was going for here, upward != backward.
>
> Rael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Krus [mailto:mkrus@newsisfree.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:47 PM
> > To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: [radio-userland] First 24 hours completed
> >
> >
> > Julian Bond wrote:
> >
> > > Some of the entries also underscore the divergence in the RSS
community
> > > from the 0.9x end. Take a look at this for instance:
> > > http://www.ourfavoritesongs.com/users/dave@userland.com/rss/rss.xml
> > > Here we have an 0.92 feed where the items have no <title> and no
<link>.
> > > This is of course valid 0.92 as both fields became optional in this
> > > version.
> > >
> > > Many aggregators written to 0.90/1 would have problems displaying this
> > > at all, at all.
> > maybe aggregators are wrong ;-)
> >
> >
> >
> > But it leads to twisted results: many RSS .92 feeds have a description
> > field containing
> >      <A href="somelink">sometitle</a> somedescription
> >
> > What's the justification for not using RSS .91 for those feeds ????
> > (besides the fact that Radio Userland cannot build them ;-) )
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>