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

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

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    ... What I said was [there are] quite a lot of fairly respectable tools around that can t use namespaces . Ok, so fairly respectable might be open to
    Message 1 of 34 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >> It was a statement of fact rather than an argument.
      >
      >Strawman argument:
      >http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/strawman.html

      What I said was "[there are] quite a lot of fairly respectable tools around
      that can't use namespaces". Ok, so 'fairly respectable' might be open to
      interpretation, but how about 'designed to conform to well-established
      specifications'. There are plenty of apps around that are perfectly good in
      themselves, but don't support namespaces. Fact.

      >How that applies here is it's not that use of namespaces is bad.
      >The truth, in
      >fact, lies in parser(s) mishandling the XML data. Namespaces are,
      >on one level,
      >just additional attributes. A parser following the XML spec
      >should be able to
      >ignore them with no trouble at all.

      As long as it isn't validating, yes. If it is, then objecting to the
      unspecified (ns) attributes is the correct behaviour.

      [example]

      >spec at fault. This is not namespaces at fault. This is the
      >PARSER at fault.

      With the proviso above, I agree.

      >Hunt down that parser and help it start supporting the specs.

      My advice would be to just throw that parser away - decent parsers are
      cheap.

      [explanation of namespaces snipped]

      >What's happening here is developers are learning about what really
      >following a
      >spec is about. They're also learning it critical for a spec to be
      >CLEAR about
      >what's going on. Not to mislead out of ignorance.

      Are they learning? Recent history would suggest otherwise.

      >One could argue the latest spec is somehow helping things. This
      >is like saying
      >Typhoid Mary was a good ambassador for the concept of vaccines.
      >http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa062900a.htm

      Well, quite ;-)

      >The solution is for people to educate themselves and stop acting out of
      >ignorance. If something out there can't parse the XML properly
      >then how about
      >working on getting that parser fixed instead? As to the spec?
      >The authors of
      >any spec need to take responsibilty and do a good job INSTEAD of
      >blaming that
      >which they don't understand.

      Agreed.

      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.