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

RSS Draft 1.10 Change Notes

Expand Messages
  • rcade
    I ve updated the draft spec on both the web site and wiki. There s a lot of debate here and elsewhere about whether this effort would be better pursued as a
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've updated the draft spec on both the web site and wiki. There's a
      lot of debate here and elsewhere about whether this effort would be
      better pursued as a "best practices" document rather than a newly
      written specification for the existing RSS format.

      I'm beginning to explore that approach, as I will detail in another
      post to RSS-Public. In the meantime, I think the work we're doing here
      to develop the spec would be necessary to write a best practices
      document, so it makes sense to keep working on it.

      Additionally, with the resignations from the advisory board, I don't
      intend to propose the spec to the board in early April as originally
      planned.

      All board members who are asked to consider the adoption of this spec
      should have at least 60 days to review the ongoing development process
      and hear from RSS developers about whether it's something the board
      should undertake.

      For this reason, the earliest the spec will be proposed is 60 days
      after the board has a full complement of members.

      If you are involved in RSS as a developer, publisher, educator or
      executive and would like to join the board, send an e-mail to me or
      another board member:

      http://www.rssboard.org/advisory-board

      1. Editor's Note

      The first two sentences of the editor's note have been revised:

      "This proposed specification provides completely new documentation for
      the Really Simple Syndication format, describing exactly the same
      elements and attributes delineated in RSS 2.0.1 (revision 6),
      published by the RSS Advisory Board on Jan. 25, 2005. Because this
      document is still under development and has not been adopted by the
      board or any other entity involved with RSS, current implementers
      should continue to rely on 2.0.1-rv-6."

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

      The changes make it more clear that this is a proposal under
      development and RSS 2.0.1-rv-6 is still the spec to use when
      implementing Really Simple Syndication.

      2. rss Element

      The version attribute has been changed from "2.0.2" back to "2.0" and
      the sample files have been revised accordingly.

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

      Changing the version attribute's value would enable implementers to
      programmatically distinguish between an RSS document that follows this
      specification and one that follows RSS 2.0.1-rv-6.

      I favor versioning in general, but in RSS, the likely consequence
      would be two competing versions of Really Simple Syndication -- one
      that follows RSS 2.0.1-rv-6 and one that follows this specification.

      The purpose of this effort is to clarify RSS as it exists today, not
      create a third syndication format that calls itself RSS. None of the
      board members who has participated in the development of this draft
      wants to fork RSS.

      3. data-types-url

      A sentence has been added to this section:

      "An Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) provides a means to
      identify Internet resources using non-ASCII characters that can't be
      present in URLs. All link and url elements MUST be valid URLs, so an
      IRI that contains non-ASCII characters MUST be converted to a URL
      using the procedure described in RFC 3987."

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#data-types-url

      This paragraph links to these pages:

      http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.html
      http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.html#sec-3.2

      This addition makes it clear that RSS requires valid URLs, so IRIs
      that are not also valid URLs must be converted to be employed in RSS.

      4. Introduction

      The link to the Feed Validator has changed to
      http://www.rssboard.org/feed-validator

      http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1#introduction
    • Sam Ruby
      ... +1 ... +1 ... +1 - Sam Ruby
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        rcade wrote:
        > I've updated the draft spec on both the web site and wiki. There's a
        > lot of debate here and elsewhere about whether this effort would be
        > better pursued as a "best practices" document rather than a newly
        > written specification for the existing RSS format.
        >
        > I'm beginning to explore that approach, as I will detail in another
        > post to RSS-Public. In the meantime, I think the work we're doing here
        > to develop the spec would be necessary to write a best practices
        > document, so it makes sense to keep working on it.

        +1

        > Additionally, with the resignations from the advisory board, I don't
        > intend to propose the spec to the board in early April as originally
        > planned.
        >
        > All board members who are asked to consider the adoption of this spec
        > should have at least 60 days to review the ongoing development process
        > and hear from RSS developers about whether it's something the board
        > should undertake.
        >
        > For this reason, the earliest the spec will be proposed is 60 days
        > after the board has a full complement of members.

        +1

        > The version attribute has been changed from "2.0.2" back to "2.0" and
        > the sample files have been revised accordingly.

        +1

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