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

Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?

Expand Messages
  • rcade
    Dave Winer s original suggestion of a portable RSS format is now available here: http://www.rssboard.org/news/186 The original is gone from Harvard s blog
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 3, 2009
      Dave Winer's original suggestion of a portable RSS format is now
      available here:

      http://www.rssboard.org/news/186

      The original is gone from Harvard's blog server.

      Reading that post and Randy's PSS 0.9 draft, I agree that we need a
      way to use RSS elements in other XML dialects. But I'm not convinced
      that the simplest way to do this would be to create a new format.

      I think we should consider adding a sentence to the end of the
      Extending RSS section [1]:

      "Using RSS elements in other XML dialects requires the namespace
      declaration "http://www.rssboard.org/rss-namespace/". This declaration
      MUST NOT be used in an RSS document."

      The preceding paragraph currently states that RSS elements "are not
      themselves members of a namespace" for backwards compatibility.
    • 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
        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.