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

RSS Clarifications

Expand Messages
  • Randy Morin
    Tim Bray raised some long repeated issues this week. http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/03/20/Atom-as-a-Case-Study 1. It s not clear whether you re
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Tim Bray raised some long repeated issues this week.

      http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/03/20/Atom-as-a-Case-Study

      1. It's not clear whether you're allowed to have more than one enclosure.
      2. An item title is either in HTML, or not, and there's no way to find
      out which, which can cause silent data loss.
      3. Relative links don't work.
      4. Increasingly, people want to use non-ASCII characters in URIs, but
      in RSS 2.0 you can't do that.

      MHO answers are...

      1. One enclosure per item.
      2. No HTML in <title>.
      3. Relative links are not recommended. Use absolute.
      4. There is a mapping from IRIs to URIs.

      Thoughts?
      Thanks,

      Randy
    • ecomputerd
      ... And MHO answers are: 1. Multiple enclosures are allowed, but not preferred (if widespread client support for the feed in question is desired). 2. I
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
        > MHO answers are...
        >
        > 1. One enclosure per item.
        > 2. No HTML in <title>.
        > 3. Relative links are not recommended. Use absolute.
        > 4. There is a mapping from IRIs to URIs.
        >
        > Thoughts?
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Randy
        >

        And MHO answers are:

        1. Multiple enclosures are allowed, but not preferred (if widespread
        client support for the feed in question is desired).
        2. I personally prefer HTML *not* allowed in title (due to current
        clients mishandling), but not sure what RSS specification should say.
        3. Agree
        4. I'm not sure what "There is a mapping" means. If allowed, do
        clients need to support IRI by inserting translation code? I don't
        think I'd personally recommend IRIs due to lack of client support
        right now.

        And this brings up some really great points about how we need to
        come to agreement.

        I have some ideas about how we can get there, but it will look (only
        temporarily!) like we're taking a step backward.

        Greg Smith
      • Andy Henderson
        ... If you re asking what would be a good recommendation for people creating RSS feeds then I agree 100% on points 1-3, but plead ignorance on point 4. If
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Randy Morin wrote:
          > Tim Bray raised some long repeated issues this week.
          >
          > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/03/20/Atom-as-a-Case-Study
          >
          > 1. It's not clear whether you're allowed to have more than one
          > enclosure.
          > 2. An item title is either in HTML, or not, and there's no way to
          > find out which, which can cause silent data loss.
          > 3. Relative links don't work.
          > 4. Increasingly, people want to use non-ASCII characters in URIs, but
          > in RSS 2.0 you can't do that.
          >
          > MHO answers are...
          >
          > 1. One enclosure per item.
          > 2. No HTML in <title>.
          > 3. Relative links are not recommended. Use absolute.
          > 4. There is a mapping from IRIs to URIs.
          >
          > Thoughts?

          If you're asking what would be a good recommendation for people creating RSS
          feeds then I agree 100% on points 1-3, but plead ignorance on point 4.

          If you're asking how I interpret the current spec, my answer is the same.

          However, I'm less clear on recommendations to people writing programs to
          read RSS feeds.

          Andy
        • James Holderness
          ... I m unsure what is meant by this. Given the following HTML-free title: Jack & Jill are
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Randy Morin wrote:
            > 2. No HTML in <title>.

            I'm unsure what is meant by this. Given the following HTML-free title:

            Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill

            what is the correct way to include that in an RSS title. Option 1 or 2?

            1. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill]]></title>
            2. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile the hill]]></title>

            Option 1 would result in silent data loss in some aggregators. Option 2
            would looked messed up in some aggregators, but would at least still be
            readable.

            I'm assuming your interpretation of the spec is that option 1 is the correct
            choice (i.e. the option that produces silent data loss). Is that correct?

            Regards
            James
          • James Housley
            ... Number 3 is the correct answer 3. Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill That is the correct answer because & and < are defined
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mar 22, 2006, at 6:58 AM, James Holderness wrote:

              > Randy Morin wrote:
              >> 2. No HTML in <title>.
              >
              > I'm unsure what is meant by this. Given the following HTML-free title:
              >
              > Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill
              >
              > what is the correct way to include that in an RSS title. Option 1
              > or 2?
              >
              > 1. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill]]></title>
              > 2. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile the hill]]></title>
              >
              > Option 1 would result in silent data loss in some aggregators.
              > Option 2
              > would looked messed up in some aggregators, but would at least
              > still be
              > readable.
              >
              > I'm assuming your interpretation of the spec is that option 1 is
              > the correct
              > choice (i.e. the option that produces silent data loss). Is that
              > correct?
              >

              Number 3 is the correct answer

              3. <title>Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill</title>

              That is the correct answer because & and < are defined as XML
              entities in the specification and are taken care of in the XML parser
              before they get to the RSS.

              Jim

              --

              /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign .
              \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail .
              X - NO Word docs in e-mail .
              / \ -----------------------------------------------------------------
              jeh@... http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power to Serve
              jim@... http://www.TheHousleys.net
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste
              good with ketchup.
            • A. Pagaltzis
              Hi James, ... Your choice is equivalent to James Holderness’ option #1. ` ` is the same thing as `&` and ` ` is the same thing as
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 22, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi James,

                * James Housley <jim@...> [2006-03-22 14:00]:
                >On Mar 22, 2006, at 6:58 AM, James Holderness wrote:
                >>what is the correct way to include that in an RSS title. Option 1
                >>or 2?
                >>
                >>1. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill]]></title>
                >>2. <title><![CDATA[Jack & Jill are <a mile the hill]]></title>
                >>
                >>Option 1 would result in silent data loss in some aggregators.
                >>Option 2 would looked messed up in some aggregators, but would
                >>at least still be readable.
                >
                >Number 3 is the correct answer
                >
                >3. <title>Jack & Jill are <a mile from the hill</title>
                >
                >That is the correct answer because & and < are defined as
                >XML entities in the specification and are taken care of in the
                >XML parser before they get to the RSS.

                Your choice is equivalent to James Holderness’ option #1.
                `<![CDATA[&]]>` is the same thing as `&` and `<![CDATA[<]]>`
                is the same thing as `<`.

                Your answer has the same problem James H. pointed out for his
                option #1 -- silent data loss in some aggregators.

                Regards,
                --
                Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.