RE: [RSS2-Support] Summary of issue with xmlns attribute
>> It was a statement of fact rather than an argument.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.As long as it isn't validating, yes. If it is, then objecting to the
>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.
unspecified (ns) attributes is the correct behaviour.
>spec at fault. This is not namespaces at fault. This is theWith the proviso above, I agree.
>PARSER at fault.
>Hunt down that parser and help it start supporting the specs.My advice would be to just throw that parser away - decent parsers are
[explanation of namespaces snipped]
>What's happening here is developers are learning about what reallyAre they learning? Recent history would suggest otherwise.
>spec is about. They're also learning it critical for a spec to be
>what's going on. Not to mislead out of ignorance.
>One could argue the latest spec is somehow helping things. ThisWell, quite ;-)
>is like saying
>Typhoid Mary was a good ambassador for the concept of vaccines.
>The solution is for people to educate themselves and stop acting out ofAgreed.
>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
>which they don't understand.
- 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.
--- 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
> 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
> namespaces contained herein" via the use of an 0.9x version
> for RSS content consumers to get fair warning that the
> 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
> - Sam Ruby