On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Chris Messina wrote:
Perhaps rel-enclosure doesn't actually make sense long term. Given
that relEnclosure, AFAIK, was grafted onto RSS to allow for media
being "attached" to feeds, rel-enclosure doesn't make sense in your
regular browser-consumed webpages because we've got <embed> and
<object>. If RSS had been able to support inline rich media, wouldn't
those tags have sufficed?
It also seems that relEnclosure was about behavior on the client side
and less about semantics.
That depends on what you mean by "semantics." :D
Let's presume for a minute that we've got infinite bandwidth and
infinite storage. In such a world, all embedded media (and hrefs)
would be able to be pulled in and cached automagically. In which case
the need for delayed media downloading would be much less, so even if
you're syncing your 8,000 feeds, which all contain rich media like
podcasts and vcasts, you would theoretically be able to pull all that
data down anyway for later consumption.
So the question is, what is the most effective way to link to that
media? Indeed, will the media itself supplant the textual content of
the feed?
In the case of podcasts/vlogs, I'd say yes. The media file is primary.
Will feeds simply become the distribution method for rich
media or eventually get into a TV-for-the-web model where you pick
people to subscribe to and can "tune in" to an aggregate stream of
them whenever you like?
Uh, this is already possible with podcasting/vlogging.
I dunno, and I suppose I'm getting a little
off topic here.
Yeah. Media revolution is off topic. :D
So here's what I'm thinking when it comes down to it (now that you
know what I'm looking at in the future)... Shouldn't relEnclosures
just be converted to <object> or <embed> tags when they're pulled into
xhtml?
Eh, don't think so. The use case for enclosures (at least for me) has
been for the UA to download and queue the media file up for later
consumption.
Isn't that what the original intention (and indeed, behavior)
actually implies? Wasn't the original problem one of embedding rich
media in RSS and so therefore, relEnclosure is actually made obsolete
when ported to the world of XHTML microformats?
I don't think so. I think there's still a place for enclosures in
html. Just like, thought we can send HTML, RTF or PDF (*shudder*),
attachments are still useful.
Anyway, sorry to go on and on, must be the Parisien air. ;)
Or the wine.
-ryan
--
Ryan King
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
