On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 13:11:58 +0000, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 16 Dec 2004, at 12:38 pm, Ben Lund wrote: > > That depends entirely on the application you have in mind. For end- > > aggregators, it's mostly fine that they can ignore things they don't > > understand. But what about aggregating intermediaries? Unless > > there's a defined extensibility model, there's a large chance that the > > extra data in the exensions that the aggregator doesn't understand > > will be lost. RDF in RSS 1.0 make this a very simple problem to > > solve, whereas arbitrary XML namespaces makes it fiendishly difficult. > > What's difficult about just copying everything through? Why can't you > do that? I can't think of any problems that wouldn't equally apply to > RDF.
What if they receive multiple, non-identical versions of the same entry from different sources? Admittedly there isn't a conflict resolution defined for core RSS 1.0 components, e.g. where only a single value is mandated, but for extensions (which we are talking about here) the RDF model is clear (there is no conflict). With RSS 2.0 in such a circumstance all you would have is two or more XML fragments, without any specified means of gluing them together. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
