On 15/08/2005, at 4:28 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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."
Because it's not free; publishers have to declare the Atom namespace, and that's confusing; atom:link is defined in the context of Atom, not in the context of RSS. I'm interested in getting things working, not playing the syndication format advocacy game.
There's a difference between promoting multiple syndication formats and accommodating the reality that there are many.
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.
Er, no.
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).
This isn't an atompub draft, it's a draft to the attention of the atompub WG (hence draft-nottingham-atompub).
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
