- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:47:25 +0100
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Cc: rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
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
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 11:47:26 UTC