W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

RE: [RSS-DEV] RSS 1.1

From: Hammond, Tony <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:10:12 -0000
Message-ID: <125F7834E11A5741A7D79412EE3504F90F26CEE1@UK1APPS2.nature.com>
To: 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
Cc: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hey. I'm in no way against representing Classes/properties as such - as long
as it's done _consistently_ down the hierarchy (in XML). Seems to me that
the <item> element (as Dan has already pointed out) should be a class (and
hence capitalized), so that there is some kind of symmetry between Channel
and Item. The thing that immediately jumps out is having one element - the
root element - only capitalized. Just instinctively looks wrong. Things
should look right IMHO.

(If I inadvertently misused the word 'striping' in the previous post, it was
purely to refer to the XML element tag name representation of classes and
properties as being traditionally rendered as uppercase and lowercase,
respectively.)

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Danny Ayers
> Sent: 19 January 2005 11:48
> To: Jon Hanna
> Cc: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RSS-DEV] RSS 1.1
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:16:24 -0000, Jon Hanna 
> <jon@hackcraft.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > 1. The one thing that really sticks out for me is the (rather 
> > > silly?) capitalization on the 'Channel' element which looks like a
> > 
> > The one thing that really sticks out for me is that they 
> had the sense 
> > to capitalise the Channel element. YMMV.
> 
> Heh. I'm with Dan on this one - RDF/XML is easier to read 
> with the Class/property convention. (Or following the CDF 
> precedent, all elements shouting ;-)
> 
> Generally, this does seem like a pretty reasonable 
> improvement over 1.0, but - this should have been RSS 2.0!
> 
> I anticipated 1.0.1/1.1 to be max-compatibility bugfix only, 
> so this this version came as a bit of a surprise. It doesn't 
> seem to have direct compatibility beyond being RDF & XML. I 
> won't try to speculate what this means in the world at large...
> 
> I'm not sure about the containment business. I don't think 
> the justification of syntax similarity to RSS 0.9x/2.0 really 
> counts for much. What's needed IMHO is the expression that 
> *all* the items from all feed documents from that URI are in 
> the same container or collection. I don't think having lots 
> of 15-item Collections will help (I hope to be proved wrong). 
> Personally I'd probably have got rid of <items> altogether, 
> and added a <inChannel> property to each item. If order's 
> needed (is it?), make it explicit with <previous>.
> 
> I'd also have the channel URI as the feed rather than feed or 
> homepage.
> 
> What might well be useful are normative mappings from/to 
> Atom, RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0.
> 
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> 
> -- 
> 
> http://dannyayers.com
> 



********************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
********************************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 12:10:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:12 GMT