As the discussion of a unified RSS profile has continued on Sam's weblog, Microsoft's Don Box has offered an initial proposal of a RSS profile for comment. (Don has only addressed items so far.) Separately, Ben Trott has posted some of his own thoughts on what the format should be.
I really think before this goes further an important issue needs to be addressed. At what point does the specification stop and extensible modules begin?
For instance, looking at Don's item proposal, you have pubDate, comments, category, and author elements. The dublin core (dc) module has elements for date, category (subject), and author. The dc module also has a lot of other elements not included in this initial proposal. As I read Don's proposal, either a new module for meta data must be developed like dublin core sans the overlapping elements (which is silly) or design overlapping and redundant elements (which is silly AND confusing). Some tags need to be depreciated in order for RSS to move forward and achieve its greater goals.
I still maintain the best approach overall is going to a simple basic core with modules (many of which has already been developed) to easily extend the format based on the context in which it is being used. It would raise RSS feed quality and make them more neighborly for users.
Getting more specific on Don's proposal…
I'm liking the use of xhtml:body more and more. I wasn't sure what I thought of it initially, but it's growing on me. I applaud the call for the description to be for excerpts only and not contain markup.
Instead of title and description being an either/or where you use the description if the title is missing and use the title of the description is missing – revert back to the rules set in the 0.91 spec. Don Box has proposed a profile…
derived from a description is not nearly as helpful to me in a summary view then a proper title like An RSS 2.0 Profile.
If you are the type of person who writes many small entries and doesn't want to title them you could use something like tima thinking outloud. May 11 2003 20:12 -5:00.
(Blog name and timestamp.)
-I don't agree with the proposed definition of the guid or link elements. The vast majority of feeds use the link tag to point to site feed originates from. What value is gained from this change? No one who seems to understand the concept of a URI has ever been able to explain to me why we need a guid element to replace
the link tag. What function does the link tag as used today not provide?-
UPDATE: Just as I posted this I see that Don has posted a version 0.3 in the meanwhile where the delta states Embraced <link> as the one true URL container :-)
Looking forward to the continuing discussion.
<p>As <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1394.html">the discussion of a unified RSS profile</a> has continued on Sam's weblog, Microsoft's Don Box has offered <a href="http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/dbox/#nn2003-05-11T12:13:16Z">an initial proposal of a RSS profile</a> for comment. (Don has only addressed items so far.) Separately, Ben Trott has <a href="">posted</a> some of his own thoughts on what the format should be.</p>
<p>I really think before this goes further an important issue needs to be addressed. <strong>At what point does the specification stop and extensible modules begin?</strong></p>
<p>For instance, looking at Don's item proposal, you have pubDate, comments, category, and author elements. The dublin core (dc) module has elements for date, category (subject), and author. The dc module also has a lot of other elements not included in this initial proposal. As I read Don's proposal, either a new module for meta data must be developed like dublin core sans the overlapping elements (which is silly) or design overlapping and redundant elements (which is silly AND confusing). Some tags need to be depreciated in order for RSS to move forward and achieve its greater goals.</p>
<p>I <a href="http://www.timaoutloud.org/archives/000126.html">still maintain</a> the best approach overall is going to a simple basic core with modules (many of which has already been developed) to easily extend the format based on the context in which it is being used. It would <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/webservices/2002/11/19/rssfeedquality.html">raise RSS feed quality</a> and make them <a href="http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/940.html">more neighborly</a> for users.</p>
<p>Getting more specific on Don's proposal…</p>
<p>I'm liking the use of xhtml:body more and more. I wasn't sure what I thought of it initially, but it's growing on me. I applaud the call for the description to be for excerpts only and not contain markup.</p>
<p>Instead of title and description being an either/or where you use the description if the title is missing and use the title of the description is missing – revert back to the rules set in the 0.91 spec. <q>Don Box has proposed a profile…</q> derived from a description is not nearly as helpful to me in a summary view then a proper title like <q>An RSS 2.0 Profile.</q> If you are the type of person who writes many small entries and doesn't want to title them you could use something like <q>tima thinking outloud. May 11 2003 20:12 -5:00.</q> (Blog name and timestamp.)</p>
<p>-I don't agree with the proposed definition of the guid or link elements. The vast majority of feeds use the link tag to point to site feed originates from. What value is gained from this change? No one who seems to understand the concept of a URI has ever been able to explain to me why we need a guid element to <q>replace</q> the link tag. What function does the link tag as used today not provide?- </p>
<p>UPDATE: Just as I posted this I see that Don has posted a version 0.3 in the meanwhile where the delta states <q>Embraced <link> as the one true URL container :-)</q></p>
<p>Looking forward to the continuing discussion.</p>
Leave a comment