Re: RSS 1.1

First off, let's be sure to balance between fixing (whatever that means) the
outstanding, but minor, issues with the 1.0 form and breakage of existing
tools.  Changing something that will break existing tools better damn well
have a pretty compelling use case (and not just RDF voodoo).  I'm all for
the voodoo-value but recognize not everyone buys into it.

> - what's the link element for? I assume when used as property of Image
> if should describe the link on that image, but what's the good as
> property of Channel or Item?
> - the image property is missing in the ontology (at least its not there
> with a label)

How the image element of a channel evolved has always been a bit broken.  As
long as it persists are being useful for a 88x31 sidebar icon I've little
argument with taking steps to fix it's defects.

> - the image property has an xml:lang attribute, but this is not legal in
> RDF as only plain-literals may have an xml:lang
> - Why can a channel have only one title? I'm used to give them a title
> property for every available language, same for description - and why
> shouldn't multiple images be possible?

Dealing with multi-lingual applications is a mess.  I continue to think it's
just better to make them separate feeds.  Too many of the tools do not have
the ability to deal with compound feeds.  Either as 'more than one feed in
the document' or as multi-lingual representations of the 'same' data within
a single feed.  I'd rather see development of mutiple feeds within a single
document long before multilingual.  Not as a bias against expressing content
more flexibly but as a preference to solve other problems first.  I think
that by dealing with a single document containing multiple feeds it'll make
it easier to deal with multilingual content.

> Regarding the design of the spec I would prefer to start with a
> serialization independent definition of the ontology, and define the
> concept of "RSS - Document" in a second section. This is to make clear
> that usage of the RSS-Vocabulary is not limited to RSS Documents, does
> not necessarily imply some specific serialization and is independent of
> XML. By contrast an RSS-Document is an XML Document following the
> defined syntax which happens to interpretable as RDF/XML as a graph
> using RSS - like this people only interested in the vocabulary would not
> be discouraged by irrelevant details.

What use-case can you offer that better illustrates what you're talking
about here?  It's not clear just what you mean.

-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/