Re: RSS 1.1

> I don't think this is neccesarily true.

You're free to disagree.

> things which are
> almost-RSS 1.0, for example - does not neccesarily mean that the tool is
> broken.

Madness.  Just plain madness.  Have we not drilled this insanity out of
developer's heads already?  Why are so many people putting such energies
into working around stupid shit like badly formatted feeds instead of just
fixing them or the tools making them?  The latter is a HELL OF A LOT EASIER
than the crap that has to get added to an aggregator to catch them.  It's
even easier when people that one would think should know better don't cloud
the issue with excuses.

> but in general we've attempted to encourage Postel's Law: "Be
> liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."

Do not dress up bad practices by paraphrasing a dead man's intentions.
While I'm all for the idea of avoiding disruptions of the *end user's*
experience I don't think coddling bad developers rises to the intentions
Postel had in mind.  It's one thing for a feed tool to try working past a
few trivial errors.  It's another (unacceptable) thing to try justifying
that as a baked-in part of the format.

> This part of my previous email was referring to the developers who have
> integrated changes into their tools specifically to support RSS 1.1,
> rather than tools which may, due to peculiarities of coding, support it.
> JabRSS[1] and BottomFeeder[2] have both added support since the release
> of the specification. (BottomFeeder had it within 3 hours.)

And given that it's not even a standardized format presents yet another
range of legacy issues.

-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/