W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Atom and RDF

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:08:52 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd041012010847467346@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dare Obasanjo <kpako@yahoo.com>
Cc: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, rdfweb-dev@vapours.rdfweb.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, semanticweb@yahoogroups.com, rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, atom-syntax@imc.org

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Dare Obasanjo <kpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> --- Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <enclosure> does appear to have significant flaws,
> > and was frozen into
> > the spec that way.
> 
> Can you name these significant flaws and point out
> where in the RSS 2.0 spec these flaws are enshrined.

Lucas Gonze listed the following problems with the enclosure element:

1 It causes users to download big files that they will never listen to
or watch, creating pointless overload on web hosts.
2 It doesn't allow us to credit the MP3 host, so we can't satisfy the
netiquette of always linking back.
3 For broadband users, MP3s are not big enough to need advance caching
in the first place.
4 The required content-type attribute is a bad idea in the first place. 
5 The required content-length attribute should not be there. 

http://gonze.com/weblog/story/5-17-4

1 and 3 are bigger picture issues, so arguably could be dropped from
the list. 2 could *potentially* be satisfied by a namespace-qualified
extension, but as far as I'm aware no-one is doing so. Had there been
a slot for this in the spec then they may have done. But ok, that
could potentially be fixed. Which still leaves 4 and 5 as genuine
flaws enshrined in the spec.

> > Speaking philosophically, I'm starting to wonder if
> > the good Mr. Winer
> > mightn't simply have entered into a pact with some
> > horned deity or
> > other...
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> Seriously, is such a comment really warranted?

Sorry, I find some things hard to take seriously.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 08:08:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:10 GMT