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

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

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    ... It sounds like the best bet, and I believe it s correct by the W3 specs, but the only way of finding out would be to test it. Expecting parsers to ignore
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >--- In RSS2-Support@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
      >> Interesting analysis Marcus -- but I wonder if the breakage is
      >> really worth it.
      >
      >...but the spec could remain correct and most of the breakages could
      >be avoided - I believe - if the spec explicity made the requirements I
      >went into in the second half of that post. I don't think there _has_
      >to be a complete tradeoff between maintaining correctness and avoiding
      >breakages while allowing for namespaces.
      >
      >Anyone else able to confirm if this would be true?

      It sounds like the best bet, and I believe it's correct by the W3 specs, but
      the only way of finding out would be to test it.
      Expecting parsers to ignore prefixed elements/attributes would have struck
      me as a total long shot, but that was before I learnt that there isn't a DTD
      ;-)

      The problems with 'xmlns' have demonstrated that it isn't possible to have
      full backwards compatibility and add namespaces, so the current status of
      the RSS 2.0 spec is broken. Unfortunately it's also frozen. RSS 4.0 anyone?

      Cheers,
      Danny.
    • 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.