| Newsgroups |
gmane.network.syndication.rss.devel |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
--- In [email protected], Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@g...> wrote:
> seems to suggest exactly the same RDF graph* as Suzan's version, the
> only difference being the typing of the Enclosure node, which could
> effectively be done through the RDFS anyway (wasn't this the same
with
> Ian Davis' version too?):
Yes, it is very close to Suzans version for simple enclosures.
Both Suzan and us tried to be close to existing RSS 2.0 "enclosure"
element, which predictably made our defition look very similar.
However we added some additional elements for nested enclosures.
> So really the question is which version of the *syntax* is most
likely
> to be adopted by RSS-hackers..?
Hopefully we can agree with Suzan on common one :)
> I'm puzzled by the RSS 1.0 "Literal syntax" example in the crocodile
> doc, why should this stuff be treated as literal XML data rather
than
> first-class RDF nodes and arcs?
Our motivation was to allow same XML syntax, representing enclosures
to be reused between RSS 2.0 and RSS 1.0. While proposed RDF tree
could be represented in very similar XML, it is not the only possible
XML representation of the same tree.
However, now I am starting to think that this was not such a good
idea.
Developers supporting enclosures in RSS 1 feed according to this
proposal should understand both syntax anyway, so it does not
save much. I think I am going to remove "literal" syntax
from next revision of proposal.
I plan to have new revision ready tomorrow, taking into account all
provided feedback, which was extremely valuable.
Sincerely,
Vadim
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/