Re: [xsl] rss, in all its guises

Subject: Re: [xsl] rss, in all its guises
From: "Kurt Cagle" <kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 03:52:21 -0700
RSS is much like HTML -- it evolved because the need for it was there, but
is now reaching a point where it is becoming too integral to the overall
structure of the web not to be pushed into a formal process. Personally, I
would love to see it be submitted as a note into the W3C, which would in
turn pretty much force it into at least standards compliance with the rest
of the XML technology base. I think its too core to go to OASIS, though no
doubt there's some push to move it there as well.

-- Kurt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Fuller" <jim.fuller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:22 AM
Subject: RE: [xsl] rss, in all its guises


>
> >  They make it effectively impossible to handle RSS with XML
> > > tools. For these reasons, I used RSS as an example of not to design
> > > an XML application in Effective XML.
>
> +1 to that !
>
> RSS supposedly gained adoption, because there were some cool tools for it,
there was nothing else better, other people were using it ( who had some
useful content ) and it 'appeared' to be in xml; so it was a perfect match
with respect to syndicating content.
>
> Personally, I find it very odd that people herald any particular format as
useful, with respect to a vocabulary in xml; if it doesnt fit, one is a
transform away to something better.....so the idea that the 'format' of RSS
is powerful and useful was and always will be a matter of taste for me.
>
> On the other hand, the insanity of not conforming to underlying xml
standard means that RSS is just one of those 'almost' technologies, that
seemed to be the right way....but in the end compromised itself; and now it
just looks like an embarressing mistake. No doubt, embarressing mistakes
like RSS get used every day all the time in our industry, so arguing the
case against RSS is a bit moot, it is a successful technology; but for all
its simplicity its typical usage imposes a  barrier to integrating it for no
reason.
>
> +1 to DavidP comment that v2.0 does little in the way of explicitly
defining constraints on the data model; though it does explicitly state that
it must conform to the xml 1.0 ( http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml )....now
waiting around to see if it happens in the wild is another thing.
>
> RSS should be held up of what happens when we lower our standards with
respect to allowing anything less then well formed, valide xml.
>
> just my 2p, jim fuller
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread