On 8/15/05, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Draft -03 of feed history is now available, at: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed- > history-03.txt
>From <http://www.mnot.net/blog/2005/08/15/feed_history>:: "I registered this PURL namespace for the benefit of format-neutral syndication extensions; i.e., those that will work equally well in all versions of RSS as well as Atom." Why is it desirable to promote mulitple syndication formats? Practically any RSS2 extension would be ok in Atom, and any Atom element would be legal in RSS2. If feed-history used atom:link, it would get xml:base processing and link descriptions "for free." I'm guessing extensions "that will work equally well in all versions of RSS" must be valid RDF. This feels like crypto-RDF-advocacy to me, which seems a little pointless. Five years of syndication software seem to show that RDF isn't very useful in this space. Most aggregators don't parse RSS1 with an RDF processor, and the most popular one that does (Thunderbird) would get a lot fewer bug reports if it ditched the RDF processor (which it probably will when Mozilla switches to SQLLite for storage). Mark, James, and anyone else are obviously free to spec any extension they want. That said, it feels fishy to call RDF modules Atompub drafts given that the WG rejected RDF with prejudice (I wouldn't count myself in that camp, though I do despise RDF-promises and RDF-lessons offered instead of RDF-benefits and RDF-running-code). Robert Sayre
