4051Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)
- Sep 25, 2002On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 05:51 Europe/London, Phil Ringnalda wrote:
> Ben Hammersley wrote:<even more snippage/ >
>> On Thursday, Sep 26, 2002, at 00:27 Europe/London, Ben Hammersley
>>> . My dad loves RSS, he just
>>> wouldn't recognise it over HTML if he viewed source. The simplicity
>>> the spec, for him, is meaningless.
>> <much snippage/>
> <more snippage/>
> The first RSS feed I created was done essentially by hand (in PHP, but<snip/>
> code might as well have been typed on a manual typewriter),
> A few months later when I wrote a script to scrape my<snip/>
> Blogger-produced blogs,
> I hope I've removed most of the errors and security leaksNo, Phil, you *are* a developer. (Sorry to break this to you. :-)
> from, a 2.0 template that I based roughly on the default 0.91
> template, and
> some comment and individual archive templates that I did myself from
> and copying other people's.
> I am not a developer. I am not a professional. I am an interested
> publisher. I am your audience.
> Phil Ringnalda
You're on this list. You're writing scripts to scrape Blogger. You
contribute to specifications. You're correcting errors in the MT
template. You're as professional as they come when it comes to this.
Everyone here is.
What I'm trying to address is the fundamental difference between RSS
and HTML - which is that no one other than the member of this list, and
the sort of people who write their own CMSs need ever look at it. It's
just not something the average guy would ever have reason to create by
hand (and not one single person reading this post can claim to be an
Because of this, I'm just saying that to be forever looking to simplify
the spec to a point where your average consumer can view source and
learn the spec is pointless and indeed harmful if done at the expense
of other stuff. Because on the internet, since HTML, the average
consumer has become a whole load more average.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>