Re: Re: mod_enclosures proposal

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:31:38 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:

> As a long time observer of RSS, I'd say the chances of a significant
> fraction of RSS feeds being produced with the composite style is about the
> same.  Additionally focusing extensively on it in the documentation is
> going to turn people off from the whole project. (which is to say go back
> to just doing it the way its built into RSS 2.0)

I am a fan of RSS/RDF, but I'm afraid you're probably right on this point.

> Is this valid RDF?
> 
> <enc:enclosure rdf:resource="http://some/external/file.mp3"
>   enc:length="1939570" enc:type="audio/mpeg" />

Depends where it goes, this would be ok:

<item rdf:about="http://example.org/sdf">
  <enc:enclosure
     rdf:resource="http://some/external/file.mp3"
      enc:length="1939570"
      enc:type="audio/mpeg" />
</item>

An alternative might be for the enclosure to appear in place of the
item, in which case the syntax would have to change a little:

  <enc:enclosure
     rdf:about="http://some/external/file.mp3"
      enc:length="1939570"
      enc:type="audio/mpeg" />

(enc:enclosure could make a nice subclass of rss:item)

> No one ever seems to use this style, but it has some nice properties.
> Gives a URI to hang future metadata off of, but puts all the core data in
> one place for us poor luddites still using XML parsers.

Simple yet has the potential for enrichment, yep.

> I know this proposal is in early stages, but I found the "Crocodile Lord"
> document fairly confusing, and I gave up on reading Suzan's proposal when
> I saw that it was served with content-type: application/rdf+xml.

What's wrong with using the correct mime type?

> Once a syntax is nailed down could we perhaps get a document in the style
> of the core modules (e.g. http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/dc/), perhaps
> will the all really fancy, new and cool features moved to an appendix so
> as to not scare away adopters immediately?

+1

> Lastly has anyone check with the Atom community on whether they want a new
> syntax/namespace for enclosures?  Seems like their link constructs would
> serve admirably as is. (I still wish Kevin's mod_link proposal had taken
> off)

I'm sure there will be support in Atom core for simple RSS 2.0 style
enclosures. The <link> construct has been pulled apart somewhat,
though that way may still be an option. I could be wrong, but I
*think* the approach that came out on top was along the lines of :

<entry>
   <id>urn:of:entry</id>
   <content src="http://example.org/parp.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" />
...
</entry>

IIRC, it will also be possible to do "true" enclosures, i.e. have the
audio file inline in the XML, Base64 encoded, again with a type
attribute giving mime type.

There hasn't yet been any clear consensus on how vocabularies from
other namespaces should be used. Been around there a few times...

It is an open WG, and input on these issues from people involved with
RSS 1.0 should be welcomed:

Wiki:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/FrontPage

mailing list:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/

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/