On 8/15/05, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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;
Less confusing than the purl namespace? Most people just think those are magic strings they have to include at the top. You could be right, though. > atom:link is defined in the context of Atom, > not in the context of RSS. What problems or ambiguities arise from putting Atom links in RSS? I can't think of any. > I'm interested in getting things working, > not playing the syndication format advocacy game. Not sure how feed-history will work without a unique id. > There's a difference between promoting multiple syndication formats > and accommodating the reality that there are many. Well, since any extension element (that I know of) is valid RSS2 or Atom, I'm confused as to why "extensions that can be used in any format" is necessary. > > > 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. So, they must be valid RDF, or no? Pardon my crypto comment, that was a little over the top. > This isn't an atompub draft, it's a draft to the attention of the > atompub WG (hence draft-nottingham-atompub). Well, you could still bring it to the attention of the WG by emailing us, but the drafts don't purport to solve any of the problems in the charter. I feel it's (unintentionally) intellectually dishonest, since most folks will assume it's an Atompub draft. But, that's just my humble opinion. Robert Sayre
