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

RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?

Expand Messages
  • secou
    Hi, I try to be precise in a generic and popularized RSS definition for non coders. RSS is an XML dialect. It can handle external namespaces declared by
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I try to be precise in a generic and popularized RSS definition for non
      coders.

      RSS is an XML dialect. It can handle external namespaces declared by "xmlns"
      attributes.

      But, hum, do you consider RSS as "namespace" in itself ? Or is it incorrect
      to use this word.

      In fact, I try to explain "namespace", in an RSS/Atom and modules/extensions
      view, describing it as a group of elements all possibly used in a specific
      goal, and needing to be declared to avoid polysemic confusion.

      But how would you explain that RSS is a namespace... but that you don't have
      to declare it the usual way... (with "xmlns") ? Is the "<rss
      version=2.0>... </rss>" section enough to say that the RSS namespace is the
      basic namespace I the newsfeed ?

      Thanks

      secou
    • Randy Morin
      Awesome! I think then that most of us are in agreement, we just need to decide whether to go with the userland or rssboard namespace. I m going to start a
      Message 42 of 42 , Feb 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Awesome! I think then that most of us are in agreement, we just need
        to decide whether to go with the userland or rssboard namespace. I'm
        going to start a brand new thread (this one is too loud to follow).

        Randy

        --- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "scamden" <sterling@...> wrote:
        >
        > After some further research: Visual Studio only generates a
        warning
        > if the URI points to a file with extension .xsd that either cannot
        be
        > opened or is not in a valid XSD format.
        >
        > SlickEdit, on the other hand, generates a popup warning any time
        that
        > the URI is not an XSD.
        >
        > I fully understand that having the URI point to an XSD is optional,
        > but I think that it is optimal. I'm happy, though, if we just
        choose
        > a URI that has no file extension. We can point it at an HTML
        document
        > for now, and then later if we decide to develop an XSD we can point
        it
        > there instead.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.