Re: Atom and RDF

Danny Ayers <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.syndication.rss.devel,gmane.comp.web.rdfweb,gmane.comp.web.rdf,gmane.network.syndication.atom.syntax
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:58:58 -0700 (PDT), Dare Obasanjo <kpako-/[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> --- Danny Ayers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Lucas Gonze listed the following problems with the
> > enclosure element:
> >
> > 1 It causes users to download big files that they
> > will never listen to
> > or watch, creating pointless overload on web hosts.
> > 2 It doesn't allow us to credit the MP3 host, so we
> > can't satisfy the
> > netiquette of always linking back.
> > 3 For broadband users, MP3s are not big enough to
> > need advance caching
> > in the first place.
> > 4 The required content-type attribute is a bad idea
> > in the first place.
> > 5 The required content-length attribute should not
> > be there.
> >
> > http://gonze.com/weblog/story/5-17-4
> 
> I debunked most of these claims at
> http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=d9c0205d-3cc1-4efb-a62f-7b0f05fb13af
> 
> 1. The RSS 2.0 spec never describes this automatic
> downloading behavior. This was a suggested usage that
> Dave Winer began to evangelize outside the spec which
> as many have pointed out has its flaws.

The spec-linked "use-case narrative" is rather suggestive. If no
automatic behaviour is associated with this element then it isn't
really clear why a separate element is needed rather than a HTML-style
hyperlink in the content. But I guess you're right about this not
really being a format issue, more of a user interface thing - would I
rather have the (possibly unwanted) mp3 today, or (definitely wanted)
mp3 tomorrow.

> 2. This is true, although it did seem like a weird
> special case to me.

I don't know, with aggregate-republish systems this could get quite
common. But whatever, although it's a bit untidy structurally this
could be worked around by using the RSS 2.0 <source> element on the
item, sort of reverting to the pre-Userland semantics of <description>
being the description of an item rather than the item/content itself.
 
> 3. See (1) above
> 
> 4. No it isn't. Client software should be able, to
> decide how to react to the enclosure [e.g. if it is
> audio/mpeg display a play button] without having to
> make additional HTTP requests to the web server even
> if it is just HEAD requests.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this at all. I can see how a button might be
useful, but HTML links don't demand prior notification of the media
type.
 
> 5. Agreed.

Cheers,
Danny.


-- 

http://dannyayers.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/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.