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

A little tinkering with OPML, directory browser, and Moz

Expand Messages
  • zopepaul2
    Howdy all. I did a little fooling around today with OPML directory browsing and Mozilla: http://www.zope-europe.org/articles/200304/opmlprototype
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy all. I did a little fooling around today with OPML directory
      browsing and Mozilla:

      http://www.zope-europe.org/articles/200304/opmlprototype
      http://radio.weblogs.com/0116506/2003/04/15.html#a75

      I saw some older messages in the archive talking about XUL, tree
      widgets, RDF and OPML, etc. I've gained a little experience on
      these subjects (except OPML, which I'm new to) in the past few
      months. If anybody wants to revisit such conversations.

      Also, I'm part of OSCOM, so if anybody wants to talk about how
      OPML and CMS servers might intersect...

      --Paul
    • masukomi
      I don t think I ve seen mention of this question before and it s a hard one to search for (with useful results) so sorry if it s a duplicate. what s the
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't think I've seen mention of this question before and it's a hard
        one to search for (with useful results) so sorry if it's a duplicate.

        what's the official stance on the following syntax? would it be
        considered valid ? I'm not sure anything out there would support it
        currently.. but I just hate putting tons of text into an attribute
        value... it just seems wrong.

        <outline attributes here.....>
        a whole bunch of text here... paragraphs worth... more even
        <outilne attributes here... />
        </outline>


        -Kate
      • Dave Winer
        May I be blunt? Assuming so. It just seems wrong is not a very strong argument. If you do it differently then theoretically every processor has to work both
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 16, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          May I be blunt? Assuming so.

          "It just seems wrong" is not a very strong argument.

          If you do it differently then theoretically every processor has to work both ways.

          Then someone else thinks something else just seems wrong, and every processor has to split over that.

          Pretty soon you have a mess, and only the early players can play. I've heard this complaint about RSS, but I tell them don't blame me, I've argued against every convenience or accomodation of taste.

          My philosophy is that it's good when a format makes you retch in disgust. It means someone was a hardass on this kind of whittling down of a format. In OPML I am ruthless. Learned the hard way if you give em an inch they take a mile.

          Dave

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: masukomi
          To: opml-dev@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:16 AM
          Subject: [opml-dev] text syntax


          I don't think I've seen mention of this question before and it's a hard
          one to search for (with useful results) so sorry if it's a duplicate.

          what's the official stance on the following syntax? would it be
          considered valid ? I'm not sure anything out there would support it
          currently.. but I just hate putting tons of text into an attribute
          value... it just seems wrong.

          <outline attributes here.....>
          a whole bunch of text here... paragraphs worth... more even
          <outilne attributes here... />
          </outline>


          -Kate



          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT




          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          opml-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • masukomi
          Makes sense. it just seems wrong wasn t my only argument but none of the others are particularly strong enough to justify a change. as a note, the others
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 16, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Makes sense.
            "it just seems wrong" wasn't my only argument but none of the others
            are particularly strong enough to justify a change.

            as a note, the others were readability and sticking with what I
            perceive as the standard convention when it comes to sticking large
            pieces of text in xml.

            OPML is the only place I've seen that preferred to stick all the text,
            regardless of length, in an attribute.

            -Kate



            On Wednesday, April 16, 2003, at 05:12 AM, Dave Winer wrote:

            > May I be blunt? Assuming so.
            >
            > "It just seems wrong" is not a very strong argument.
            >
            > If you do it differently then theoretically every processor has to
            > work both ways.
            >
            > Then someone else thinks something else just seems wrong, and every
            > processor has to split over that.
            >
            > Pretty soon you have a mess, and only the early players can play. I've
            > heard this complaint about RSS, but I tell them don't blame me, I've
            > argued against every convenience or accomodation of taste.
            >
            > My philosophy is that it's good when a format makes you retch in
            > disgust. It means someone was a hardass on this kind of whittling down
            > of a format. In OPML I am ruthless. Learned the hard way if you give
            > em an inch they take a mile.
            >
            > Dave
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: masukomi
            > To: opml-dev@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:16 AM
            > Subject: [opml-dev] text syntax
            >
            >
            > I don't think I've seen mention of this question before and it's a
            > hard
            > one to search for (with useful results) so sorry if it's a duplicate.
            >
            > what's the official stance on the following syntax? would it be
            > considered valid ? I'm not sure anything out there would support it
            > currently.. but I just hate putting tons of text into an attribute
            > value... it just seems wrong.
            >
            > <outline attributes here.....>
            > a whole bunch of text here... paragraphs worth... more even
            > <outilne attributes here... />
            > </outline>
            >
            >
            > -Kate
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > opml-dev-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ---------------------~-->
            > Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/xaxhjB/hdqFAA/VygGAA/2U_rlB/TM
            > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
            > ~->
            >
            > 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/
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.