- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:08:52 +0200
- 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 UTC