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

RE: [RSS2-Support] Summary of issue with xmlns attribute

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    ... Ah, right. I didn t realise - I just took it for granted that an XML language spec would have a DTD. ... Yes, and sometimes the spec is to blame. ... It
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >Just *having* a well-formed and complete DTD would help. That's
      >been missing
      >from 0.9x since way back. Using a schema is another choice. But
      >again that's
      >something the spec authors must take the time to create.

      Ah, right. I didn't realise - I just took it for granted that an XML
      language spec would have a DTD.

      >XML is all about people supporting specs. When something can't
      >support the spec
      >it's typical to hear the spec being blamed.

      Yes, and sometimes the spec is to blame.

      >As for "can't use namespaces" that's a strawman argument if ever
      >I've heard one.

      It was a statement of fact rather than an argument.

      Cheers,
      Danny.

      >> If I remember correctly, namespace support didn't come into SAX
      >until 2.0 so
      >> there's likely quite a lot of fairly respectable tools around
      >that can't use
      >> namespaces. I'm a little surprised at the breakage though - I would have
      >> expected the behaviour on finding an unexpected attribute to be to ignore
      >> it, rather than complain. Although, if the parsers are following a DTD,
      >> allowing an xmlns attribute on the root there might make a difference.
      >
      >
      >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >RSS2-Support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • bloebrich
      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
      Message 34 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.