Re: [rss-public] Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?
- rcade wrote:
> I think we should consider adding a sentence to the end of theMy concern is that, no matter what you say in the spec, you can be sure that
> Extending RSS section :
> "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."
people will start using that namespace in regular feeds. And when they do, I
suspect many feed readers are going to break.
I think we can possibly lessen that breakage by choosing a namespace URI
that is already in use in the wild, so there's some chance that feed readers
will already support it. The one that I've seen most often is:
Before this amendment is proposed to the board, I would like to run a few
tests to see how big an issue this is and if the choice of namespace URI
makes any real difference.
- 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.