Re: [rss-public] Re: RSS : a "namespace" in itself ?
- rcade wrote:
> I look forward to seeing the results of your test,Results now up on my blog:
> but since that URII wouldn't think so. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that
> was used to define a namespace for RSS 2.0, won't that be received as
> an encouragement to do exactly that?
Dave experimented with it briefly in his feed, but never formally proposed
it be used for anything.
> Also, that URI lacks a trailing slash, and it's not under our control,I don't see the value of a trailing slash - the Atom namespace doesn't have
> so we can't educate anyone who requests it in a browser on the proper
> and improper use of namespace declarations in RSS.
one and that has never been an issue AFAIK. The fact that it's not under the
board's control is a valid point though.
However, given that the namespace is in use in the wild and is conciously
supported by at least a few feed readers, I think creating a new namespace
assigned to the same set of elements is a bad idea. We could end up with the
same chaos we have with the Yahoo media rss extension, with different people
using different namespaces, and it'll end up an interoperability nightmare.
- 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.