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

Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?

Expand Messages
  • rcade
    ... URI ... readers ... 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
    Message 1 of 42 , Feb 4 6:45 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "James Holderness" <j4_james@...>
      wrote:
      > 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:
      > http://backend.userland.com/rss2

      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.
    • 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 8:41 PM
      • 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.