Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?
- I think there's two scenarios that exist with RSS vis-a-vis
-RSS elements in RSS documents
-RSS elements in other XML documents
1. RSS elements in RSS documents
These RSS element are not in a namespace. This inevitably brings
about debate. Some suggest that there is some sort of null XML
namespace, but nobody has ever shown me where this is defined. Please
do call me on this.
2. RSS elements in other XML documents
Nobody has ever made any formal proposal on this. The closest we ever
came was PSS, which I'm unsure if it was a joke, but Dave Winer never
moved it forward.
I think it's time to proposal PSS for adoption by the RSS Advisory
Board in order to clarify use of RSS in other XML documents.
Thoughts and criticism welcome and wanted.
--- In email@example.com, "secou" <secou@...> wrote:
> I try to be precise in a generic and popularized RSS definition for
> RSS is an XML dialect. It can handle external namespaces declared
> But, hum, do you consider RSS as "namespace" in itself ? Or is it
> to use this word.
> In fact, I try to explain "namespace", in an RSS/Atom and
> view, describing it as a group of elements all possibly used in a
> goal, and needing to be declared to avoid polysemic confusion.
> But how would you explain that RSS is a namespace... but that you
> 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 ?
- 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).
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "scamden" <sterling@...> wrote:
> After some further research: Visual Studio only generates a
> if the URI points to a file with extension .xsd that either cannot
> opened or is not in a valid XSD format.
> SlickEdit, on the other hand, generates a popup warning any time
> 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
> a URI that has no file extension. We can point it at an HTML
> for now, and then later if we decide to develop an XSD we can point
> there instead.