W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: XML payloads in feeds

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:24:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4D270602.6060909@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: public-html-xml@w3.org
On 01/07/2011 04:34 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 00:01, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> I assert that from time to time one will come across a document
>> fragment which has become disassociated from its media type.  I
>> provided as an example of this: the rss 2.0 description element.
>> Henri asked if Atom solves this.  While it is correct that Atom
>> provides a means to identify such content unambiguously, I further
>> assert is that we can't assume that either RSS 2.0 is going away or
>> that RSS 2.0 will be corrected in any reasonable period time.
>
> The ambiguity in RSS 2.0 descriptions isn't about HTML vs. XML. It's
> about HTML vs. plain text, so I think bringing up RSS 2.0 is a
> distraction.

"The" ambiguity?  "THE"?  RSS 2.0 is positively rife with ambiguities.

You are confusing one of the problems with the RSS 2.0 title element 
(which is allegedly backwards compatible with NetScape's 0.91 which 
explicitly described title as plain text and UserLand's 0.91 which 
exclusively used title for HTML) with RSS 2.0's description element.

To help anchor this discussion, here is the an actual bug report:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602304

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 12:25:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 January 2011 12:25:08 GMT