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

Re: Common OPML attributes?

Expand Messages
  • Stan Krute
    Namespaces, theoretically cosmic, can be squirmy worms in practice. I like the way Dave Winer specced an allowance for namespace extensions in the Extending
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Namespaces, theoretically cosmic, can
      be squirmy worms in practice.

      I like the way Dave Winer specced an allowance for namespace
      extensions in the Extending RSS section of the RSS 2.0
      Specification (located at
      http://backend.userland.com/rss#extendingRss ):

      =====
      "An RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if
      those elements are defined in a namespace.

      For guidance on how to do that, please refer to the W3C document."
      =====

      Interested RSSers are still hashing away on this
      on the rss-dev list (For example, this thread:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/4108 )

      I think it's good to watch that process evolve before messing with
      the OPML spec, whose elegant simplicity I heart greatly.
    • Stan Krute
      ... It is. It follows the spec carefully, and its OPMLs interop well with the UserLand OPMLs. However, it ignores (at this time) some existing-in-practice
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff wrote:

        > I thought JOE was OPML focused

        It is. It follows the spec carefully, and
        its OPMLs interop well with the UserLand OPMLs.
        However, it ignores (at this time) some
        existing-in-practice attributes that aren't part
        of the spec.
      • Danny Ayers
        ... Cosmic squirmy worms? ... On a technical level, I agree this is a major step forward - the addition of namespaces increases the potential utility of this
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >Namespaces, theoretically cosmic, can
          >be squirmy worms in practice.

          Cosmic squirmy worms?

          >I like the way Dave Winer specced an allowance for namespace
          >extensions in the Extending RSS section of the RSS 2.0
          >Specification (located at
          >http://backend.userland.com/rss#extendingRss ):
          >
          >=====
          >"An RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if
          >those elements are defined in a namespace.
          >
          >For guidance on how to do that, please refer to the W3C document."
          >=====

          On a technical level, I agree this is a major step forward - the addition of
          namespaces increases the potential utility of this RSS thread by an order of
          magnitude. I can't say I like the way Dave did it at all - rushing through
          and promoting an untested spec, and then discovering that it won't work with
          a lot of aggregators isn't very inspiring.

          >I think it's good to watch that process evolve before messing with
          >the OPML spec, whose elegant simplicity I heart greatly.

          Heh - it might have been better had the process evolved first, right now it
          looks like crawling out of the wreckage.

          I'm afraid I don't find OPML particularly elegant either - if there was just
          a single <ol> element in the spec, but also namespace support, now that
          would be elegant...

          Cheers,
          Danny.
        • Dave Winer
          Please, let s leave RSS politics off this list. It s bad enough on other lists. Thanks.. ... From: Danny Ayers To:
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Please, let's leave RSS politics off this list. It's bad enough on other
            lists. Thanks..


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@...>
            To: <opml-dev@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 2:00 AM
            Subject: RE: [opml-dev] Re: Common OPML attributes?


            >
            > >Namespaces, theoretically cosmic, can
            > >be squirmy worms in practice.
            >
            > Cosmic squirmy worms?
            >
            > >I like the way Dave Winer specced an allowance for namespace
            > >extensions in the Extending RSS section of the RSS 2.0
            > >Specification (located at
            > >http://backend.userland.com/rss#extendingRss ):
            > >
            > >=====
            > >"An RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if
            > >those elements are defined in a namespace.
            > >
            > >For guidance on how to do that, please refer to the W3C document."
            > >=====
            >
            > On a technical level, I agree this is a major step forward - the addition
            of
            > namespaces increases the potential utility of this RSS thread by an order
            of
            > magnitude. I can't say I like the way Dave did it at all - rushing through
            > and promoting an untested spec, and then discovering that it won't work
            with
            > a lot of aggregators isn't very inspiring.
            >
            > >I think it's good to watch that process evolve before messing with
            > >the OPML spec, whose elegant simplicity I heart greatly.
            >
            > Heh - it might have been better had the process evolved first, right now
            it
            > looks like crawling out of the wreckage.
            >
            > I'm afraid I don't find OPML particularly elegant either - if there was
            just
            > a single <ol> element in the spec, but also namespace support, now that
            > would be elegant...
            >
            > Cheers,
            > Danny.
            >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > opml-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • Danny Ayers
            Ok. All that aside, I do think Stan s point about not messing prematurely with the OPML spec was valid. Cheers, Danny. ... Danny Ayers
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Ok.

              All that aside, I do think Stan's point about not messing prematurely with
              the OPML spec was valid.

              Cheers,
              Danny.
              ---
              Danny Ayers
              <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff>

              Idea maps for the Semantic Web
              http://ideagraph.net


              >-----Original Message-----
              >From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
              >Sent: 28 September 2002 16:06
              >To: opml-dev@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: Re: [opml-dev] Re: Common OPML attributes?
              >
              >
              >Please, let's leave RSS politics off this list. It's bad enough on other
              >lists. Thanks..
              >
              >
              >----- Original Message -----
              >From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@...>
              >To: <opml-dev@yahoogroups.com>
              >Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 2:00 AM
              >Subject: RE: [opml-dev] Re: Common OPML attributes?
              >
              >
              >>
              >> >Namespaces, theoretically cosmic, can
              >> >be squirmy worms in practice.
              >>
              >> Cosmic squirmy worms?
              >>
              >> >I like the way Dave Winer specced an allowance for namespace
              >> >extensions in the Extending RSS section of the RSS 2.0
              >> >Specification (located at
              >> >http://backend.userland.com/rss#extendingRss ):
              >> >
              >> >=====
              >> >"An RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if
              >> >those elements are defined in a namespace.
              >> >
              >> >For guidance on how to do that, please refer to the W3C document."
              >> >=====
              >>
              >> On a technical level, I agree this is a major step forward - the addition
              >of
              >> namespaces increases the potential utility of this RSS thread by an order
              >of
              >> magnitude. I can't say I like the way Dave did it at all -
              >rushing through
              >> and promoting an untested spec, and then discovering that it won't work
              >with
              >> a lot of aggregators isn't very inspiring.
              >>
              >> >I think it's good to watch that process evolve before messing with
              >> >the OPML spec, whose elegant simplicity I heart greatly.
              >>
              >> Heh - it might have been better had the process evolved first, right now
              >it
              >> looks like crawling out of the wreckage.
              >>
              >> I'm afraid I don't find OPML particularly elegant either - if there was
              >just
              >> a single <ol> element in the spec, but also namespace support, now that
              >> would be elegant...
              >>
              >> Cheers,
              >> Danny.
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >> opml-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >opml-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • Jeff Mitchell
              ... So you woudl rather OPML remain more or less non-useful for another year? :) jeff -- It s murder out there. You can t even travel around in your own micro
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 28, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Stan Krute wrote:

                > I think it's good to watch that process evolve before messing with the
                > OPML spec, whose elegant simplicity I heart greatly.

                So you woudl rather OPML remain more or less non-useful for
                another year? :)

                jeff

                --
                "It's murder out there. You can't even travel around in your own micro
                circuits without permission from 'Master Control Program'. I mean,
                sending *ME* down here to play games.... Who does he calculate he is?"
                -- Peter Jurasik as Crom, _Tron_
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.