Re: RSS 1.1 bugfix?

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 09:30:35AM +0100, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to jump that late in the discussion!
> 
> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2005 ? 11:19 +0000, Leigh Dodds a ?crit :
> > My view is that it's misleading to label this as a "bug fix" release.
> > It's a new format in a new namespace.
> 
> I agree that being in a new namespace it's a new format that can't be
> considered as a bug fix release.
> 
> That being said, I also think that it could have been considered as a
> bug fix if the namespace has been kept and I wonder if the decision to
> change the namespace couldn't have been challenged.

The RSS 1.0 namespace is in violation of the OWL specification, because 
it uses image as both a class and a property, which OWL prohibits. By 
using the same namespace, the mistake is carried forward, and can not be 
corrected. In addition, it would serve to further confuse the issue on 
what kind of RSS is being read: if it were to use the same namespace, 
how would one know if they were parsing RSS 1.0 or 1.1?

However, due to the people who have commented to this effect, RSS 1.1 
will be labelled as a release addressed at resolving existing bugs in 
the RSS 1.0 format, rather than a "bug fix release".

> > IMO it's more correct to state that "The RSS 1.1 specification addresses 
> > bugs and issues raised against RSS 1.0". It's not a "bug fix" release of 
> > RSS 1.0 itself.
> > 
> > Like the format though, much cleaner.
> 
> So do I, well done!
> 
> I have a (rather minor) critic about the RNG schema, though.
> 
> When you write:
> 
> Channel = element Channel {
>    AttrXMLLang?, AttrXMLBase?, AttrRDFAbout, 
>    (title & link & description & image? & Any* & items)
> }
> 
> you don't allow people to easily use this schema and add their modules,
> while if you had written:
> 
> Channel = element Channel { Channel.content }
> 
> Channel.content =
>    AttrXMLLang?, AttrXMLBase?, AttrRDFAbout, 
>    (title & link & description & image? & Any* & items)

I'll no RELAX NG expert, howeverm, the "Any" production allows any 
number of elements to be included in the XML file (other than elements 
in the rss namespace, which are limited). Maybe you're trying to say 
that it's more difficult to validate that way, because they have to edit 
the schema, but it seems to me that you'd have to edit it to add the 
extra extensibility anyway.

(For an example of a validating feed, which validates but also uses 
extension modules, see http://crschmidt.net/blog/feed/wp-rss1.1 .)

Thank you for your feedback, and I'm interested to hear more on the 
RELAX NG aspects you mentioned.

-- 
Christopher Schmidt


 
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/