Re: RSS Revision - IssueMinimumOneItem

> Yeah - this would have to be an extension. I suppose you could
> formalise a DC time range for the feed or something, but nothing now
> is going to understand that.

Chris' dcterms module has a temporal range element:
http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/dcterms/#temporal

Something like this:
<dcterms:temporal>start=20041008T00:00:00Z;end=20041008T23:59:59Z</dcterms:t
emporal>
<dcterms:temporal>start=20041008;end=20041008</dcterms:temporal>

I'd caution against trying to get into some of the more esoteric ways to
express a date here.  While it's certainly "possible" to use any number of
variations on wc3dtf style (or others) date it may not make much sense to
expect the consuming programs to bother undertaking how to parse them all.

Putting this in the channel context would seem like a reasonable way to
explain what range of time the feed document is covering.  For a situation
where the consuming program 'needs to know' what range is covered this seems
like a possible way to do it.

Thus you could publish a feed that has no items and explain what range of
time it's actually covering.

This does nothing to cover the situation of how to request alternative
ranges.  That's fodder for a whole other thread and one that I've wanted to
get into for a while now.

> So I guess I'm trying to make my screws more like nails for people who
> insist on using hammers. :)

Well, the analogy works up to a point.  Sometimes arguing about how well or
poorly a solution is to the problem draws out a better picture of the
problem.  Other solutions have a chance to emerge to better solve the
problem.

> > If it provides compelling enough functionality then they'll want to put
> > forth the effort.
>
> Some won't. There are people who refuse to take free training that
> would save them time within days. Some people are just contrary, or
> convinced that they don't have time for time-saving measures. (There
> are those who would take a custom client from us immediately, and love
> it, of course.)

I certainly agree.  It's one of those balancing point arguments.  Without
content there's no point of making better tools but without better tools
there's no point of making better content, etc...

-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

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