[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [syndication] Time for XHTML-RSS?
It's certainly an interesting idea, but I'm curious about where this is
going. It sounds like the aim is towards one-doc-fits-both and
one-reader-fits-both, or at least that they're interchangeable.
Will this actually get the best of both worlds? What will be the difference
at each end?
The browser will be able to understand RSS tags and mark them up
appropriately - to some extent that is already possible - see
http://webaccess.mozquito.com/features/index.xml
and look at the source.
At the other end we have the subscription angle - in effect asking a browser
(with some organisational ability) to periodically check pages for updates.
Isn't this likely to be a bit heavy on bandwidth?
But putting implementation details aside, why might we want to do this?
I suppose the reason for all this is the blog, or rather a specific content
management style that involves frequent creation of small pieces of content.
Personally I'd hesitate to just fling RSS and XHTML together and hope for
the best - the result could easily be loss of the benefit of the metadata
and just a slower form of content browser. I think the power is more likely
to come from enhancing the content/meta divide rather than reducing it.
There may be a Browser NG at the end of this, but before propagating
software that may encourage the inefficient use of resources, I suggest the
idea is mulled over a little...
Cheers,
Danny.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ransom [mailto:doug.ransom@alumni.uvic.ca]
> Sent: 27 April 2003 17:39
> To: syndication@yahoogroups.com; RSS-DEV
> Cc: Dave Winer
> Subject: [syndication] Time for XHTML-RSS?
>
>
> Doug Ransom wrote:
>
> The more I think about this, the more I like it. I am thinking of
> writing it up, unless I can convince those working on the RSS RFC to
> adopt this. I think this should happen concurrently with the addition
> of namespaces to RSS 2 (whatever flavour that results in), becuase
> aggregators would be able to use the same code to read RSS 2+ namespace,
> and XHTML+RSS 2+namespace. The only difference from the current RSS 2.0
> in processing is they would need to:
> - find the first channel it the document instead of requiring channel be
> the first element of the document.
> - ignore markup (but not text content) from tags that aren't known RSS
> modules. This is in the spirit of the concept of descriptive markup of
> XML documents (as opposed to structured data), and just ignoring markup
> you don't care about.
>
> How the aggregator developers feel?
>
> Doug Ransom
>
> >For really simple syndication, simpler even than Really Simple
> >Syndication (RSS 2), why not define a syndication module for html?
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/
> >
> >In the following example, all text content within elements from an rss
> >namesapce is syndicated by aggregators after removing tags (but not
> >text) from their children:
> >
> ><html>
> ><head>
> ><rss:channel xmlns="a new namespace"> whatever elements you
> >need</rss:channel>
> ></head>
> ><body>
> ><rss:item><h2><rss:title>My Item</rss:title></item>
> >Date:<rss:date>2003-20-01</rss:date>
> ><rss:description>Today we went
> ><blink>fishing</blink></rss:description>down at the wharf. 100 more
> >lines blah blah.
> ></rss:item>
> >
> ><table><tr><rss:item><td><rss:date>20040432</rss:date><td><rss:ti
> tle>HTML
> >Amateurs use tables for
> >layout</rss:title></td><td><rss:description>whatever you think about
> >css</rss:description> is of no consquence to elvis</td>
> ></item></table>
> ></body>
> >
> >The first description would show up in an aggregator as "Today we went
> >fishing", because the blink tag would be stripped out. The rss elements
> >would not be noticed by users with web browsers unless theauthor
> >provided a CSS to display the rss elements.
> >
> >This allows for single source html and RSS without fiddling with web
> >server content-accept, tying to convert one document format to another,
> >etc. And it can be converted to RSS 2.0 or 1 with a remarkably simple
> >program by the aggregator.
> >
> >The RDDL module uses a similar technique for documenting XML namspaces
> >in a machine usable and human use in a single source.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Doug Ransom
> Hate spam & pop ups? Try Mozilla for web/ëmail. Its free.
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>