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

RSS Draft 1.09 Change Notes

Expand Messages
  • rcade
    RSS Draft 1.09 Change Notes A new draft of the proposed spec is online. Changes 1. In the Copyright section, the phrase older drafts becomes other drafts :
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 21, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      RSS Draft 1.09 Change Notes

      A new draft of the proposed spec is online.

      Changes

      1. In the Copyright section, the phrase "older drafts" becomes "other
      drafts":

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#copyright

      2. In the Introduction, the sample files have been updated to use a
      version attribute of "2.0.2". Also, a sentence and link have been
      added to reflect the board's decision to support the Feed Validator:
      "RSS documents can be tested for validity in the Feed Validator."

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#introduction

      3. Spec rules and namespaced elements

      A sentence has been added to the Introduction: "None of the
      restrictions described in this specification apply to elements defined
      in a namespace."

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#introduction

      One of the difficulties we've run into during the past several weeks
      on RSS-Public is drafting language in the spec that doesn't overstep
      RSS 2.0.1-rv-6 and tell namespaces what to do. This occurs most
      commonly when discussing restrictions on an element's child elements.

      The rule in RSS for namespaces has been simple: "A RSS feed may
      contain elements not described on this page, only if those elements
      are defined in a namespace." However, some namespaces do something
      unusual -- they contain children that are not themselves defined in a
      namespace.

      The added sentence puts a wall between the core set of RSS elements
      and the namespaced elements that may be present in a document. The
      rules of the spec apply to the core but make no restriction on what
      takes place within defined namespaced elements, which appears to be
      the intent of existing specs since namespace support was added in RSS 2.0.

      4. Maximum image height and width

      The channel-image section deletes the sentence "This image must be no
      larger than 144 pixels wide and 400 pixels tall." and adds this
      proscription to the channel-image-width and channel-image-height sections.

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#element-channel-image

      In width, the sentence "The image MUST be no wider than 144 pixels."
      is added.

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#element-channel-image-width

      In height, the sentence "The image MUST be no taller than 400 pixels."
      is added.

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#element-channel-image-height

      5. Two to-do items have been added

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#to-do

      * Should a supplementary appendix be added that covers the most
      commonly used namespaced elements?

      * Adding documentation on how to create RFC 822-plus-four-year
      date-time values
    • Sam Ruby
      ... Shouldn t that section link to http://www.rssboard.org/feed-validator ? If you have (or can install) Python 2.4 on your server, you can also host an
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 21, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        rcade wrote:
        >
        > 2. In the Introduction, the sample files have been updated to use a
        > version attribute of "2.0.2". Also, a sentence and link have been
        > added to reflect the board's decision to support the Feed Validator:
        > "RSS documents can be tested for validity in the Feed Validator."
        >
        > http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#introduction

        Shouldn't that section link to http://www.rssboard.org/feed-validator ?

        If you have (or can install) Python 2.4 on your server, you can also
        host an instance of the Feed Validator there. My preference, if you opt
        to go this path, is that the instance be kept up to date. This can be
        done via a simple cron job that does nothing more than a "cvs -q update
        -d -P".

        - Sam Ruby
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.