On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:49:54 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't aware that RSS2 and Atom aren't extensible! I wouldn't take it for granted. Myself, I've flip-flopped on these questions a few times. I'm pretty sure "using XML syntax" isn't a guarantee in itself. Depends (as usual) somewhat on definitions. For 'extensible' FOLDOC has: "Said of a system (e.g., program, file format, programming language, protocol, etc.) designed to easily allow the addition of new features at a later date, e.g. through the use of hooks, an API or plug-ins." Does RSS 2.0 allow addition of new features? Well yes, if you wheel in the XML namespaces layer and simultaneous knock out the "Simple" of syntax that caused the old fork. Was it designed for this? I reckon that's pushing it a little. In practice it easily allows the addition of new features in the sense that a human language easily allows new words - you can have them, as long as you can get everyone to agree their meaning. Pluggable, but every new plug needs a corresponding new socket. Does RSS 1.0 allow this? Yes, without a doubt, there is a complete supporting framework/language in which it is straightforward to define extensions on the same level as RSS (RDF/RDFS) or by building layers on top (OWL, rules etc). The language is pluggable, there are hooks. In human language terms, you can define new words based largely on existing definitions, though they will usually also have additional domain-specific meaning. Does Atom allow this? That remains to be seen. Personally I'm hopeful that we've got past the assumption that namespaces alone will save us, and that we (will) have usable hooks which will make the format & protocol genuinely extensible, rather than just inheriting an 'X' in the title. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
