Re: Re: Adapting RSS-0.91/RSS-0.9 to the new hosting at http://www.rssboard.org/

Randy Morin wrote:
> 
> I agree that they are invalid and to include that change in the
> validator, but would rather suggest to the publisher an upgrade to
> RSS 2.0 than continued use of DTDs.
> MHO,

Doing such for all variants of RSS 0.9x (x != 0), would be a defensible 
position, but we've had that discussion before and the RSS Advisory 
Board has to date declined to make that recommendation.

Until such a recommendation is made, one could simply omit the DOCTYPE 
and by so doing effectively convert to "UserLand" 0.91.  That 
essentially is the second recommendation.

A third recommendation would be to "upgrade".  People may differ as to 
what the best course here is, so I simply list the three major formats. 
  That being said, the very first link on the page is to a NetScape 
hosted page that recommends RSS 2.0, and points to an RSS Advisory Board 
page that purports to help you with that process.  I say purports as it 
doesn't mention the impact of the loss of access to HTML entity 
definitions.  I believe I've mentioned that before on this list, but 
such feedback was never incorporated.

Here's the current text of the page:

http://feedvalidator.org/docs/error/DeprecatedDTD.html

An example of a feed that would break if the RSS Advisory Board's advice 
were followed can be found here:

http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/rss/must/rss91n_deprecated.xml

- Sam Ruby

> Randy
> http://www.therssweblog.com <http://www.therssweblog.com>
> 
> --- In [email protected] <mailto:rss-public%40yahoogroups.com>, 
> Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > This may initially sound overly harsh, but given that the
> definition of
>  > XML Validity is based on checks against a DTD, and given that the
>  > NetScape DTD can no longer be obtained at the prior address, I'm
>  > inclined to have the feedvalidator flag any such uses as invalid.
> I've
>  > made and deployed that change, but would be willing to downgrade
> the
>  > message to a warning.
>  >
>  > The first suggestion in the detailed message is to use the advisory
>  > board's DTD.
>  >
>  > In general, I would not recommend that anybody use DTDs, but I've
> made
>  > sure that no such warning occurs for the advisory boards DTD.
>  >
>  > If the advisory board's DTD is used, the entity definitions defined
>  > therein are also accepted.
>  >
>  > - Sam Ruby
>  >
> 
> 



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-public/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-public/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> 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/