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

Re: [RSS-DEV] Why is RSS 2.0 Bad? (Not a Rhetorical Question)

Expand Messages
  • Dan Brickley
    ... I think this could be a very profitable area to explore... The XHTML Basic spec s abstract, copied below, calls out some use cases that are close to those
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 26 10:07 AM
      On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 mof-rss-dev@... wrote:

      > Libby Miller <libby.miller@...> wrote on Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:18:48 +0100 (BST)
      > in :
      > >> Why couldn't (X)HTML be used instead of RSS 0.9x?
      > >makes sense to me....looks somewhat like the xhtml profiles Dan Connolly
      > >has been using (and I ripped off for events module):
      > True, that's much along the same lines, except for the fact that Your
      > profiles are meant (?) to be embedded into a "real" HTML page, whereas
      > I was suggesting a "lite" version (probably also suitable for PDAs and
      > such).
      > Of course, there is no reason as to why the "lite" version couldn't be
      > a fragment of the "real" page.

      I think this could be a very profitable area to explore...

      The XHTML Basic spec's abstract, copied below, calls out some use cases
      that are close to those we see with RSS and content syndication.


      The XHTML Basic document type includes the minimal set of modules required
      to be an XHTML host language document type, and in addition it includes
      images, forms, basic tables, and object support. It is designed for Web
      clients that do not support the full set of XHTML features; for example,
      Web clients such as mobile phones, PDAs, pagers, and settop boxes. The
      document type is rich enough for content authoring.

      XHTML Basic is designed as a common base that may be extended. For
      example, an event module that is more generic than the traditional HTML 4
      event system could be added or it could be extended by additional modules
      from XHTML Modularization such as the Scripting Module. The goal of XHTML
      Basic is to serve as a common language supported by various kinds of user

      The document type definition is implemented using XHTML modules as defined
      in "Modularization of XHTML" [XHTMLMOD].


      * the need for a simple, restricted subset of content (for PDAs etc)
      * the need for it to be rich enough to support needs of content authors
      * architecture that supports principled, modular extension

      Another excerpt:

      1.2. Background and Requirements

      Information appliances are targeted for particular uses. They support the
      features they need for the functions they are designed to fulfill. The
      following are examples of different information appliances:

      Mobile phones
      Vending machines
      Car navigation systems
      Mobile game machines
      Digital book readers
      Smart watches

      Existing subsets and variants of HTML for these clients include Compact
      HTML [CHTML], the Wireless Markup Language [WML], and the "HTML 4.0
      Guidelines for Mobile Access" [GUIDELINES]. The common features found in
      these document types include:

      Basic text (including headings, paragraphs, and lists)
      Hyperlinks and links to related documents
      Basic forms
      Basic tables
      Meta information

      My sense is that there are two main paths ahead for RSS-like formats: a
      data-oriented path, via RDF and the 'Semantic Web'; and a
      document-oriented path, via profiles of modular XHTML formats. The third
      'go it alone' path is one I'm finding less and less attractive. XML
      *allows* us all to create and promote new file formats; it's easy to slip
      from that into assuming that such proliferation of content type is a good thing.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.