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

Spec Clarification

Expand Messages
  • Randy Morin
    I d like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove debate in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed in the RSS spec. In the
    Message 1 of 10 , May 22, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove debate
      in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed in the
      RSS spec. In the section title Extending RSS, I propose that we change
      the sentence....

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

      to

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

      Looking for a second.
      Thanks,

      Randy Charles Morin
      http://www.therssweblog.com
    • Jake Savin
      Seconded. ... From: Randy Morin To: rss-board@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: [rss-board] Spec Clarification I d like to propose a
      Message 2 of 10 , May 22, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Seconded.
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:18 AM
        Subject: [rss-board] Spec Clarification

        I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove debate
        in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed in the
        RSS spec. In the section title Extending RSS, I propose that we change
        the sentence....

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

        to

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

        Looking for a second.
        Thanks,

        Randy Charles Morin
        http://www.thersswe blog.com

      • rcade
        I second this proposal. I was involved in RSS when namespaces were added to version 2.0 in 2002, though not as a board member (it didn t exist yet). Dave Winer
        Message 3 of 10 , May 22, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I second this proposal.

          I was involved in RSS when namespaces were added to version 2.0 in
          2002, though not as a board member (it didn't exist yet).

          Dave Winer solicited the input of the development community through
          his weblog and others, then added them with this explanation:

          "I've added the section explaining how to extend RSS through
          namespaces. I'm basically telling you to ask the W3C how namespaces
          work, and do it the way they tell you to do it. I don't want to assume
          the problem of documenting namespaces in the RSS spec."

          http://www.scripting.com/2002/09/06.html#When:10:56:56AM

          When namespaces were added, the spec linked to an RSS 2.0 sample file
          that used them:

          http://www.rssboard.org/rss-2-0#sampleFiles
          http://static.userland.com/gems/backend/rssTwoExample2.xml

          Part of the file:

          <rss version="2.0"
          xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

          In the above, xmlns:blogChannel is a namespace attribute extending the
          rss element.

          Randy's proposed revision makes it clear that this is valid RSS. If
          namespace attributes aren't valid RSS, every RSS feed that declares a
          namespace in the rss element is invalid.

          After wrestling with the issue on RSS-Public first in October and
          again this month, I've concluded that this is an important and
          necessary clarification.

          --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
          >
          > I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove debate
          > in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed in the
          > RSS spec. In the section title Extending RSS, I propose that we change
          > the sentence....
          >
          > "A RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if
          > those elements are defined in a namespace."
          >
          > to
          >
          > "A RSS feed may contain elements and attributes not described on this
          > page, only if those elements and attributes are defined in a namespace."
          >
          > Looking for a second.
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Randy Charles Morin
          > http://www.therssweblog.com
          >
        • rcade
          Now that the proposal has been seconded, we will discuss the issue for seven days and then have seven days in which to vote. All votes and voting deliberations
          Message 4 of 10 , May 22, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Now that the proposal has been seconded, we will discuss the issue for
            seven days and then have seven days in which to vote. All votes and
            voting deliberations should take place here on RSS-Board.
          • Randy Morin
            Just a small clarification. The attribute xmlns:blogChannel is not an extension of RSS. The xmlns namespace is part of basic XML and RSS is a dialect of XML,
            Message 5 of 10 , May 22, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Just a small clarification. The attribute xmlns:blogChannel is not an
              extension of RSS. The xmlns namespace is part of basic XML and RSS is
              a dialect of XML, therefor xmlns and xml namespace prefix attributes
              are not extensions.

              Randy Charles Morin
              http://www.therssweblog.com

              --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
              >
              > I second this proposal.
              >
              > I was involved in RSS when namespaces were added to version 2.0 in
              > 2002, though not as a board member (it didn't exist yet).
              >
              > Dave Winer solicited the input of the development community through
              > his weblog and others, then added them with this explanation:
              >
              > "I've added the section explaining how to extend RSS through
              > namespaces. I'm basically telling you to ask the W3C how namespaces
              > work, and do it the way they tell you to do it. I don't want to
              assume
              > the problem of documenting namespaces in the RSS spec."
              >
              > http://www.scripting.com/2002/09/06.html#When:10:56:56AM
              >
              > When namespaces were added, the spec linked to an RSS 2.0 sample
              file
              > that used them:
              >
              > http://www.rssboard.org/rss-2-0#sampleFiles
              > http://static.userland.com/gems/backend/rssTwoExample2.xml
              >
              > Part of the file:
              >
              > <rss version="2.0"
              > xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">
              >
              > In the above, xmlns:blogChannel is a namespace attribute extending
              the
              > rss element.
              >
              > Randy's proposed revision makes it clear that this is valid RSS. If
              > namespace attributes aren't valid RSS, every RSS feed that declares
              a
              > namespace in the rss element is invalid.
              >
              > After wrestling with the issue on RSS-Public first in October and
              > again this month, I've concluded that this is an important and
              > necessary clarification.
              >
              > --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove
              debate
              > > in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed
              in the
              > > RSS spec. In the section title Extending RSS, I propose that we
              change
              > > the sentence....
              > >
              > > "A RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only
              if
              > > those elements are defined in a namespace."
              > >
              > > to
              > >
              > > "A RSS feed may contain elements and attributes not described on
              this
              > > page, only if those elements and attributes are defined in a
              namespace."
              > >
              > > Looking for a second.
              > > Thanks,
              > >
              > > Randy Charles Morin
              > > http://www.therssweblog.com
              > >
              >
            • James Holderness
              ... When this issue was first brought up, I was fairly sure that it was just matter of poor wording, and the intention of the spec was almost certainly to
              Message 6 of 10 , May 27, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove debate
                > in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed in the
                > RSS spec.

                When this issue was first brought up, I was fairly sure that it was just
                matter of poor wording, and the intention of the spec was almost certainly
                to allow extension attributes as well as extension elements. However, I'm
                not convinced that a clarification to the spec is a good idea, even if there
                was no doubt whatsoever that this interpretation was correct. IMO the
                political complications that arise from this kind of clarification (have
                already risen in fact), far outweigh any benefits that will be gained from a
                change in the spec.

                As I understand it, the question we're trying to answer is: "Does the RSS
                spec permit extension attributes on native RSS elements?" While that would
                be nice to know, I think a far more useful question to answer is: "Will such
                an extension attribute cause any problems for existing aggregators?" That's
                exactly the sort of question that the profile was designed to answer. Why
                can't we address the issue there? Why do we really need this addressed in
                the spec?

                Regards
                James

                PS: I'm copying this to rss-public since this issue is clearly of interest
                to others not on the board and I would like to hear what they have to say
                too.
              • rcade
                ... The reason it has to be addressed in the spec is because one namespace has no bearing on another. We can t use potential interop problems as the reason to
                Message 7 of 10 , May 27, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "James Holderness" <j4_james@...> wrote:
                  > As I understand it, the question we're trying to answer is: "Does
                  > the RSS spec permit extension attributes on native RSS elements?"
                  > While that would be nice to know, I think a far more useful question
                  > to answer is: "Will such an extension attribute cause any problems
                  > for existing aggregators?" That's exactly the sort of question that
                  > the profile was designed to answer. Why can't we address the issue
                  > there? Why do we really need this addressed in the spec?

                  The reason it has to be addressed in the spec is because one namespace
                  has no bearing on another. We can't use potential interop problems as
                  the reason to tell namespace creators they ought to use (or not use)
                  namespace attributes.

                  An example: Garth Kidd created a Podcache namespace for better
                  BitTorrent-style delivery of podcasts.

                  http://juicereceiver.sourceforge.net/docs/podcache.html

                  The namespace works by extending the enclosure element:

                  <enclosure
                  length="24986239" type="audio/mpeg"
                  url="http://dallas.example.com/joebob_050689.mp3"
                  podcache:length="193732"
                  podcache:originalurl="http://dallas.example.com/123.mp3/"
                  />

                  This causes no problems for anyone else. A podcasting client can
                  implement Kidd's namespace without affecting the implementations of
                  any other namespace.

                  So the choice before us, as I see it, is to either tell Kidd this is
                  valid RSS 2.0 or tell him it isn't.
                • Randy Morin
                  James, Politics aside, do you have a specific concern with the spec mod? Is there a use case (RSS fragment) that describes your concern? Thanks, Randy Charles
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 28, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    James,
                    Politics aside, do you have a specific concern with the spec mod? Is
                    there a use case (RSS fragment) that describes your concern?
                    Thanks,

                    Randy Charles Morin
                    http://www.therssweblog.com

                    --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "James Holderness" <j4_james@...>
                    wrote:
                  • James Holderness
                    ... Nope. Technically I think the proposal makes sense. My concerns are entirely political - essentially I don t want to get involved in a spec fight, which is
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 28, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Randy Morin wrote:
                      > Politics aside, do you have a specific concern with the spec mod? Is
                      > there a use case (RSS fragment) that describes your concern?

                      Nope. Technically I think the proposal makes sense. My concerns are entirely
                      political - essentially I don't want to get involved in a spec fight, which
                      is what this is coming to. I'm not going to vote against the proposal, but
                      I'm not going to vote for it either.

                      Regards
                      James
                    • Jake Savin
                      Appologies -- this had been sitting in an Outbox on an email client I hadn t launched in a while. Please ignore. Thanks, -Jake ... debate ... in the ... change
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 11, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Appologies -- this had been sitting in an Outbox on an email client I
                        hadn't launched in a while. Please ignore. Thanks, -Jake

                        --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Savin" <me@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Seconded.
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Randy Morin
                        > To: rss-board@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:18 AM
                        > Subject: [rss-board] Spec Clarification
                        >
                        >
                        > I'd like to propose a small clarification to the spec to remove
                        debate
                        > in the community as to whether extension attributes are allowed
                        in the
                        > RSS spec. In the section title Extending RSS, I propose that we
                        change
                        > the sentence....
                        >
                        > "A RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only
                        if
                        > those elements are defined in a namespace."
                        >
                        > to
                        >
                        > "A RSS feed may contain elements and attributes not described on
                        this
                        > page, only if those elements and attributes are defined in a
                        namespace."
                        >
                        > Looking for a second.
                        > Thanks,
                        >
                        > Randy Charles Morin
                        > http://www.therssweblog.com
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.