Dare Obasanjo wrote:
Given the recent clarification of the <description>
element by Dave Winer the only ambiguity left in RSS
is with titles.
An interesting assertion. Care to comment on the cardinality of RSS2 elements? I seem to recall recent debate on the number of enclosure elements allowed in an entry.
6. It's got a good accessibility story: you have to
have an atom:summary if there's no src= or it's binary.
You can use <description> in RSS 2.0 and there's no
option for having just binary inline content.
There's an option for summaries and full content in Atom. Witness content:encoded in RSS1 and the use of atom:content and xhtml:body in RSS2. There's no option for content @src in RSS2, other than using atom:content.
Some of us are above personality squabbles when it
comes to deploying and implementing technologies. The
fact that Dave Winer is responsible for RSS 2.0 and
has flamed myself and my employer doesn't change the
fact that I and Microsoft have adopted it widely.
Tim said "suspicion." This doesn't have anything to with Dave (who I just met at Bloggercon and found to be a pretty cool guy). Discomfort with the home of the RSS2 spec is not a personality squabble.
Robert Sayre
