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

Formal specification of RSS 2.0

Expand Messages
  • Mark Nottingham
    As you may know, I ve been interested for some time in standardizing RSS, as well as registering a media type for it (application/rss+xml). For a while, I
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 18, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      As you may know, I've been interested for some time in standardizing
      RSS, as well as registering a media type for it (application/rss+xml).

      For a while, I pursued the RSS1.0 path, mostly because I was
      interested in the Semantic Web for other projects as well.

      Over time, however, I've become convinced that RDF isn't right for
      RSS, at least not in the forseeable future. Given that RSS 2.0 is the
      latest-and-greatest of the *other* branch of RSS, it seems appropriate
      to try something in that direction.

      So, I've generated an Internet-Draft that documents the RSS 2.0 format
      as described by Dave, in a more formal fashion (so it's suitable for
      submission to the IETF).

      The intent here is to document the format so that it can be referenced
      by the media type registration (this was the problem when we tried
      before; they wouldn't recognize a URL as a reference) as well as other
      specs.

      It is NOT the intent to change or "improve" the format in ANY way;
      documents that are conformant with Dave's documentation should be
      conformant with this document, and vice versa. It's ONLY to provide a
      reference that's stable in the standards world's eyes. The intent
      isn't to make this developer-friendly; Dave has already done an
      excellent job there.

      So, I'd like to enlist this community's help in assuring that it is
      indeed functionally equivalent to Dave's spec. Once that happens, it
      can be submitted to be published as an Informational RFC, and we get a
      media type registration (which means that browsers and servers are
      more likely to accommodate the format over time).

      See:
      http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-rss2-00.txt

      Cheers,
    • Sjoerd Visscher
      ... I think this is just great. This is the perfect next step for RSS 2.0. Thanks! Sjoerd
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 18, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > See:
        > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-rss2-00.txt

        I think this is just great.
        This is the perfect next step for RSS 2.0.
        Thanks!

        Sjoerd
      • Allen Firstenberg
        I m thrilled to see a formal RFC for RSS2. I ve only recently started getting into RSS, and while the existing documentation has been great, I felt like there
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 18, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm thrilled to see a formal RFC for RSS2. I've only recently started
          getting into RSS, and while the existing documentation has been great,
          I felt like there was a great deal of historical knowledge that is not
          captured. I'm hopeful the RFC can also be used to capture this knowledge.

          I have two places the RFC seems more vague than the spec at Userland.

          In section 4.2.9, the docs element is described, but no value for the
          element is specified. Since a version number is specified as part of
          section 3, it would be desirable if a cannonical URL is also specified
          for the docs in the RFC since one is given as an example in the
          Userland doc.

          In sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and 4.3.1.4, the string is identified as "an
          e-mail address", but with no clarity for format. The Userland
          documentaiton is similarly vague, but the examples show
          "user@... (Full name)" as valid. Looking back in the list
          archives, I see this was discussed on 24 Feb, and it would be great if
          the comments and justifications from there could be expressed in the
          Userland spec, the RFC, or both. At the very least, it would give
          later implementers an idea of what to expect in these fields and how
          they might wish to handle them. (Or a caution not to.)

          Great work! Looking forward to the publication.

          Allen
        • Klaus Johannes Rusch
          ... I applaud the effort to get RSS formally specified and a MIME type registered. ... Moving back from an RDF based, namespace aware scheme to essentially RSS
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In <b7pifm+1011u@...>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@...> writes:
            >
            > As you may know, I've been interested for some time in standardizing
            > RSS, as well as registering a media type for it (application/rss+xml).

            I applaud the effort to get RSS formally specified and a MIME type registered.

            > For a while, I pursued the RSS1.0 path, mostly because I was
            > interested in the Semantic Web for other projects as well.
            >
            > Over time, however, I've become convinced that RDF isn't right for
            > RSS, at least not in the forseeable future. Given that RSS 2.0 is the
            > latest-and-greatest of the *other* branch of RSS, it seems appropriate
            > to try something in that direction.

            Moving back from an RDF based, namespace aware scheme to essentially RSS 0.x
            with some modifications, and ignoring the existence of "that other format"
            looks like a step backwards.

            > So, I'd like to enlist this community's help in assuring that it is
            > indeed functionally equivalent to Dave's spec. Once that happens, it
            > can be submitted to be published as an Informational RFC, and we get a
            > media type registration (which means that browsers and servers are
            > more likely to accommodate the format over time).
            >
            > See:
            > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-rss2-00.txt

            Comments on the document:

            - Rather than an informational RFC, which usually describes best practices,
            this should be submitted as a proposed standard.

            - RSS stands for different things, the specification should not necessarily
            limit the acronym to one arbitrary interpretation of what RSS means.

            Likewise, the RSS 0.9x and RSS 1.0 specifications are completely ignored by
            the proposal.

            - The MIME type would equally apply to all RSS flavours, not just Dave Winer's
            declaration or RSS 2.0. The way the specification is currently written it
            may be read that only RSS 2.0 and later versions use the MIME type.

            - The restriction of derivative works is unacceptable for an open format.

            - As others have pointed out, the syntax of email address is not well define.

            - The specification should include a normative grammer and/or DTD and/or
            schema, to avoid ambiguity. "The rss element MUST contain a channel element"
            is not sufficient, anywhere, only one or at least one, in which order?

            - How is a "human-readable web page" defined? Does a video stream count?
            Or a text document? Or an image with text? Or an image without text?

            - The image is not restricted in size as long as width and height are not
            specified, only when these elements are present the 144 pixel limit applies.

            - A minor editorial notes: "child elements" and "parent elements" may be more
            precise than "children" and "parents".

            --
            Klaus Johannes Rusch
            KlausRusch@...
            http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/
          • dbmmd
            Your work toward formalization of RSS 2.0 is appreciated. I also recommend a W3C XML Schema for RSS 2.0. A human language specification will always be somewhat
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 28, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Your work toward formalization of RSS 2.0 is appreciated.

              I also recommend a W3C XML Schema for RSS 2.0. A human language
              specification will always be somewhat ambiguous and subject to miss
              interpretation.

              I'm concerned, however, that the <description> tag is simply stated
              to be a string. The source specification allows "entity-encoded
              HTML". By this, I understand it to mean that angle brackets are
              encoded. For example,

              <description>
              <p>Hello World</p>
              </description>

              would be

              <description>
              <p>Hello World</p>
              </description>

              This was important to handle badly formed HTML, but with XHTML, which
              is well-formed, the tags should be allowed, with or without a
              separate namespace declaration.

              That is,

              <description>
              <p>Hello World</p>
              </description>

              Aggregators that use a browser engine to render the description can
              provide a richer experience. The schema definition for <descriptoin>
              would be:

              <xs:element name="description" type="descriptionType"/>

              <xs:complexType name="descriptionType" mixed="true">
              <xs:sequence>
              <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="skip"
              minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
              </xs:sequence>
              </xs:complexType>


              -Doug


              --- In RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@m...>
              wrote:
              [snip]
              > So, I'd like to enlist this community's help in assuring that it is
              > indeed functionally equivalent to Dave's spec. Once that happens, it
              > can be submitted to be published as an Informational RFC, and we
              get a
              > media type registration (which means that browsers and servers are
              > more likely to accommodate the format over time).
              >
              > See:
              > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-rss2-00.txt
              >
              > Cheers,
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.