Re: RSS 1.1

Christopher Schmidt wrote:

>
>Although I understand what you're saying with this statement, I would like
>to point out that some aggregators do support RSS 1.1 with no changes:
>specifically, Blam!, which uses RSS.Net for parsing, supports RSS 1.1
>feeds with no changes at all.
>  
>
Great for Blam... never heard of it though ;)

Anything that uses path based parsing won't support it. Anything that 
just looks for 'items' anywhere in the DOM *might* support it.

My bet is that certainly over 10% of the parsers will fail now on RSS 
1.1 but its probably more like >50%

>>If its 
>>RSS 1.1 it should be backwards compatible at a MINIMUM with RSS 1.0.  
>>An 
>>RSS 1.0 parser should be able to parse RSS 1.1 or call it something 
>>else. RSS 3.0 ....
>>    
>>
>
>RSS 3.0 is already taken, although in jest, by two different 
>specifications: Aaron Swartz's 3.0[1] and Dan Brickley's RSS 3.0, which
>was at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss3 but seems to have been wiped
>from the servers at some point. (The original message is still 
>available[2], however.) To use this name would confuse the syndication 
>issue even more than it already is, a problem which no one wants to
>encourage, least of all Sean or I.
>  
>
I realize... Use 3.14149

>>As an implementor I'll have to go through a lot of trouble to support 
>>RSS 1.1 and I don't want to do it... Its not necessary. 
>>    
>>
>
>And that's acceptable. We've outlined the Specification for review
>by the community: that does not mean in any way that people are
>required to implement it. There are probably no aggregators out there
>which handle every format that there is,
>
Yes there is... Rojo ;)... The only Excepitons are RSS 3.0 and 1.1 ;-)

> and that's not a problem: if
>people want to use a specific type of feed, they will use a tool which
>supports it. Does it create somewhat of a mess? Yes, unfortunately,
>but these things happen, and life goes on.
>
>RSS 1.1 is not designed to force tool designers to do anything: our 
>goal was not to create a competitor to any syndication format. It was
>primarily designed to fill the need for an improved version of RSS 1.0.
>  
>
If a significant portion of the parsers don't support RSS 1.1 then its 
not an improvement.

>Given the relatively small differences between RSS 1.0 and RSS 1.1, I
>disagree that it is a complete revolution from RSS 1.0. 
>
>Most RSS 1.0-friendly aggregators will still have problems aggregating
>RSS 0.9. There is no change small enough that you can maintain complete
>backwards compatibility in all tools: We strove instead to make it
>relatively simple for implementors to implement the changes we did choose
>to make.
>
Implementors are only 1/2 of the equation. You can't forget about the 
aggregators.

Kevin

-- 

Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator).  Visit http://rojo.com. Ask me for an 
invite!  Also see irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.

Rojo is Hiring! - http://www.rojonetworks.com/JobsAtRojo.html

If you're interested in RSS, Weblogs, Social Networking, etc... then you 
should work for Rojo!  If you recommend someone and we hire them you'll 
get a free iPod!
    
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA
       AIM/YIM - sfburtonator,  Web - http://peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 5FB2 F3E2 760E 70A8 6174 D393 E84D 8D04 99F1 4412



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



 
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/