Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

58Re: Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

Expand Messages
  • bloebrich
    Sep 29 11:56 AM
      I don't think Sam is suggesting backing off current version numbers.
      I think he is suggesting two different version numbers for the
      newest Userland format. Use RSS 0.94 for the non-namespace format
      and RSS 2.0 for the version with the namespace option.

      Sincerely,
      Bruce Loebrich

      --- In RSS2-Support@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
      > I thought of that of course, but it doesn't work -- because of the
      existence of 1.0.
      >
      > One possible back-off is for the RDF folk to change the name of
      their spec to something other than RSS 1.0. I don't see that
      happening anytime soon, it's been debated ad nauseum, I can't devote
      any more cycles to that option.

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Sam Ruby

      > That sounds like a very easy problem to solve. Resurrect the
      0.94 spec.
      >
      > All RSS 0.91 feeds continue to work.
      > All RSS 0.92 feeds continue to work.
      > All RSS 0.93 feeds continue to work.
      > All RSS 0.94 feeds will work.
      >
      > This also gives RSS content producers an unambiguous way to
      say "no
      > namespaces contained herein" via the use of an 0.9x version
      number. And
      > for RSS content consumers to get fair warning that the
      (apparently
      > troublesome to some consumers) namespaces are present when they
      > encounter a 2.0 version number.
      >
      > I love it when an apparently intractable problem has a simple
      solution.
      >
      > - Sam Ruby
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic