[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thesis on syndication formats
- To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Thesis on syndication formats
- From: Sigitas Jakucionis <sigitas@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:54:52 +0000
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Rn/ALwxXCnh8xuUBbzKr1sJ3dZZg2WA0zHw6PHqO0ldXDw0W4mb+ZwtxrINcCbKEfT5IEG2eJD6q1xgyAPmggZCj9kDNjwJsRrngHIA6wORs+BbDk12xBlTbLQcPjULRmrgPqkPda9nVJtBqzwaz4MvDP6pKb4n1COUNmRZUSHk=
- Reply-to: Sigitas Jakucionis <sigitas@gmail.com>
Dear all,
I'm writing thesis on RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0 and Atom titled
"Socio-technical Issues Surrounding Content Syndication with RSS and
Atom in E-commerce". Could you please read part of table of contents
and advise other areas for investigation of syndication formats'
differences. If you suggest area for investigation, could you please
provide some explanation. All your comments are welcome.
Regards,
Sigitas Jakucionis
Table of Contents
5. TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES OF RSS AND ATOM
5.1 Support for entries in multiple languages
5.2 Ambiguity of speciffication (title, link, summary/content, extensibility)
5.3 Formats (and encoding) of entries
5.4 Security
5.5 APIs for editing and extending
5.6 Interoperability
5.7 Scalability
5.8 Identity of entry
5.9 Complexity of syntax
5.10 Extensibility
5.11 Archiving
5.12 Performance
6. SOCIAL ISSUES
6.1 Vendor neutrality
6.2 Licencing
6.3 Approval of standardization bodies