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

RSS 0.92 Spec

Expand Messages
  • Dave Winer
    Dear Syndicators, I m just about wrapping up my work with the RSS 0.92 specification. http://backend.userland.com/rss092 The most important thing about 0.92 is
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 10, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Syndicators,

      I'm just about wrapping up my work with the RSS 0.92 specification.

      http://backend.userland.com/rss092

      The most important thing about 0.92 is its continuity with 0.91. By design,
      0.91 files are also valid 0.92 files, so aggregators and content developers
      have a smooth path forward. It's also continuous with 0.91 from a
      philosophic standpoint because there no new required concepts to master.
      It's still the simplest XML format out there. An HTML background is all
      that's needed to master RSS. All the new bits are optional, so you can take
      as much time as you want and still be able to take advantage of new
      0.92-compatible software, which, imho, is the whole point.

      UserLand has a new product in the last stages of development that builds RSS
      0.92 files as its output and uses most of the new features to create a new
      more user-friendly and powerful syndication network. Of course of all of
      this open and subject to competition. Wish us luck, and thanks for all the
      support I've gotten from people on this list.

      Dave



      ______________________________
      Dave Winer, UserLand Software
      Daily notes: http://www.scripting.com/
      "It's even worse than it appears."
    • Mike Krus
      ... one thing I don t like about that, well actually it s not about the specs it s about the sample files you show: they don t contain a link tag for the items
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 10, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In syndication@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
        > Dear Syndicators,
        >
        > I'm just about wrapping up my work with the RSS 0.92 specification.
        >
        > http://backend.userland.com/rss092
        one thing I don't like about that, well actually it's not about
        the specs it's about the sample files you show: they don't contain
        a link tag for the items but rather encode HTML <A> tags in the
        item title. To me, this means that you are not separating content
        (item, link and link text) from presentation (HTML formatting).
        IMHO, this not in the spirit of XML.

        It's simple and all, but make's it harder to transform that
        content to do other things than simple webloging...


        Mike Krus
        http://www.newsisfree.com/
      • Dave Winer
        Mike thanks for the thoughtful message. So much to say about it.. In some kind of ideal world every weblog item would contain a title, a link and a
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 10, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike thanks for the thoughtful message.

          So much to say about it..

          In some kind of ideal world every weblog item would contain a title, a link
          and a description, but you rarely see that, because HTML is the dominant
          format and it allows every word to be a link, and this is something most
          weblog authors take advantage of.

          So what to do?

          My first attempt to deal with this, in an imperfect way, was in
          <scriptingNews> format in late 1997 and still in use today. Here's an
          example of my own weblog as viewed through this format:

          http://scriptingnews.userland.com/xml/scriptingNews2.xml

          This approach is imperfect, because it sometimes matches the wrong text with
          the link when it's put back together on the aggregator. But you do get the
          text separated from the links, but what do you gain from that? Hard to tell.
          A simple parser on the aggregator side could do the same thing with the
          source text.

          RSS 0.90 and 0.91 happened to quickly to even begin to address this concern
          and weblogs were still pretty new then.

          A turning point for me was a brief email exchange a few months back with
          Evan Williams, the developer of the popular "Blogger" weblogging tool. Since
          his tool is news-item-oriented, and not free-form (as my company's Manila
          tool is) I thought RSS would be a perfect fit. He said it wasn't, he didn't
          say why, but my mind snapped right into this conundrum. I think he's on this
          list, so maybe he'll comment.

          Dave







          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mike Krus" <mwkrus@...>
          To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 10:57 PM
          Subject: [syndication] Re: RSS 0.92 Spec


          > --- In syndication@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
          > > Dear Syndicators,
          > >
          > > I'm just about wrapping up my work with the RSS 0.92 specification.
          > >
          > > http://backend.userland.com/rss092
          > one thing I don't like about that, well actually it's not about
          > the specs it's about the sample files you show: they don't contain
          > a link tag for the items but rather encode HTML <A> tags in the
          > item title. To me, this means that you are not separating content
          > (item, link and link text) from presentation (HTML formatting).
          > IMHO, this not in the spirit of XML.
          >
          > It's simple and all, but make's it harder to transform that
          > content to do other things than simple webloging...
          >
          >
          > Mike Krus
          > http://www.newsisfree.com/
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Mike Krus
          Hi, ... I agree. As you may or may not know, I run a news portal site at http://www.newsisfree.com/ so I spend most of my evenings (this is not my main job)
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 12, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            --- In syndication@y..., "Dave Winer" <dave@u...> wrote:
            > In some kind of ideal world every weblog item would contain a
            > title, a link and a description, but you rarely see that, because
            > HTML is the dominant format and it allows every word to be a link,
            > and this is something most weblog authors take advantage of.
            I agree. As you may or may not know, I run a news portal site at
            http://www.newsisfree.com/ so I spend most of my evenings (this is
            not my main job) writing software which parses syndicated news feeds
            and renders them.

            > My first attempt to deal with this, in an imperfect way, was in
            > <scriptingNews> format in late 1997 and still in use today. Here's
            > an example of my own weblog as viewed through this format:
            >
            > http://scriptingnews.userland.com/xml/scriptingNews2.xml
            yeah, I read that every day:
            http://www.newsisfree.com/newsinfo.php3?source=336

            > This approach is imperfect, because it sometimes matches the wrong
            > text with the link when it's put back together on the aggregator.
            > But you do get the text separated from the links, but what do you
            > gain from that? Hard to tell.
            > A simple parser on the aggregator side could do the same thing
            > with the source text.
            >
            > RSS 0.90 and 0.91 happened to quickly to even begin to address
            > this concern and weblogs were still pretty new then.
            yes, I guess this all makes sense. "usual" news feeds will have one
            link and one text item. Rich ones will have several links. Maybe it
            would be a good idea to limit the use of HTML to the <a> tag and
            discourage the use of HTML formating in the RSS feeds...


            Mike Krus
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.