Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Holderness" <j4_james@...>
> I think we can possibly lessen that breakage by choosing a namespaceURI
> that is already in use in the wild, so there's some chance that feedreaders
> will already support it. The one that I've seen most often is:I look forward to seeing the results of your test, but since that URI
was used to define a namespace for RSS 2.0, won't that be received as
an encouragement to do exactly that?
Also, that URI lacks a trailing slash, and it's not under our control,
so we can't educate anyone who requests it in a browser on the proper
and improper use of namespace declarations in RSS.
We've had good success thus far in directing implementers to proper
use, through the spec, profile and the work with the Feed Validator
crew. The spec is clear on the lack of a namespace in RSS.
- 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 email@example.com, "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.