RE: Feed List Format

I nearly missed this thread, but coincidentally I'd expressed my opinion on
OPML this very morning in another mail, below. But first -

Re. "Since OPML is already supported by every single aggregator on this
particular planet..." - not for the purpose being specified.  The amount of
work needed to tool up for the new job would be the same if you use OPML or
a completely new XML syntax.

Plain text is definitely supported by every single aggregator, btw - if
we're just talking about a list of URIs, why not use that? What is gained
from using OPML? (see rant below)

What I have been following is the discussion on the Harvard site about
passing hierarchies between aggregators. This appears to be heading towards
being yet another half-baked hack on top of an existing half-baked hack.
Woo-hoo! Lots more work for everyone! Check Dave's long post late on in the
comments at:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/2003/10/14#a312
- this from someone who says he likes things simple.

Please can we find an alternative (a simple 'profile' of OCS?) before this
mangled tangle gains any traction and the expectation is for every
aggregator to support it.

Cheers,
Danny.


OPML rant #9:
[[
With all due respect, I've yet to see a good reason why anyone would want to
use OPML for their primary data format - it allows you to express
hierarchies in XML, sure, but XML allows you to express hierarchies in XML!

There's the ability to use it for custom kinds of data (blogrolls, text
outlines, images or whatever) by making up your own elements/attributes and
'type', but, errm, that's what you do when you create XML languages.

But, (one might argue) it allows a level of tool interop that you don't get
with other XML languages. But, (one might reply), if there is a shared model
between the producer and consumer, then you can have this level of interop
anyway, either directly (using a shared, domain-appropriate language) or
using transforms (e.g. XSLT).

Then there's the way you can mix things up in OPML (blogroll and text
outlines). You can do exactly this with XML namespaces, without the risk of
naming clashes (e.g. my title and your title).

Still, for the most part this would all point to it being a simple choice,
you can pretty much do the same things with OPML or custom XML. Except using
OPML you lose the ability to validate your data using DTDs/XML Schema
(thanks to the switch on 'type', arbitrary attributes etc).

Finally, the point you make that other tools can use it - you can express
hierarchies and practically everything being suggested here (including
links, images whatever) in (X)HTML. I suspect there are more HTML
readers/writers than OPML ones!
]]



 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/