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

Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?

Expand Messages
  • Aristotle Pagaltzis
    ... “RSS is an XML vocabulary.” ... “It can incorporate other vocabularies if they have a namespace. Namespaces must be declared with `xmlns`
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      * secou <secou@...> [2009-02-02 16:30]:
      > RSS is an XML dialect.

      “RSS is an XML vocabulary.”

      > It can handle external namespaces declared by "xmlns"
      > attributes.

      “It can incorporate other vocabularies if they have a namespace.
      Namespaces must be declared with `xmlns` attributes.”

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

      No. Yes.

      > 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 ?

      See above.

      Regards,
      --
      Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
    • 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.