Dare Obasanjo wrote:
What I find funny about people that complain about RSS
is that they always use the "asshole argument". If the
spec doesn't explicitly disallow something that is
implied to be disallowed then they make a hue and cry
about how it is broken.
That's fine. It is often good practice to leave aspects of a spec undefined. What's not OK is to "clarify" them without revving the spec.
RSS 2.0 has enclosures which make a lot more sense
than <content src=""> in syndication scenarios.
Just why is that? I see a use for enclosures, and
Also
I've seen RSS 2.0 feeds that use content:encoded so
I'm not sure where you get the idea that its usage is
restricted to RSS 1.0
It's defined as an RSS1 module (which includes indirection, BTW). You can validly put it in RSS2, but its meaning would be undefined there.
Robert Sayre
