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

RE: [syndication] Re: BBC News RSS

Expand Messages
  • Joel Chippindale
    We ve gone for OPML for the moment because of the existing support for it (even if it is patchy). Our OPML file currently resides at
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4 2:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      We've gone for OPML for the moment because of the existing support for
      it (even if it is patchy).

      Our OPML file currently resides at http://news.bbc.co.uk/rss/feeds.opml.
      WARNING: it is currently 2.5Mb. We aim to change this in the near future
      so that this file is a directory of OPML files and so bring this down to
      a more manageable size.

      We hope to support an OCS version in addition to the OPML in future.

      Joel

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@...]
      Sent: 26 February 2004 00:22
      To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [syndication] Re: BBC News RSS


      Whoops, nearly missed this...

      > Danny Ayers wrote:
      > > Personally I'd advise using a different format altogether. Any.
      >
      > So is Ideagraph going to not import OPML, making it useless to anyone
      > who has ever used an aggregator before? And will it not export OPML,
      > making it the sort of dead end that anyone with a bit of sense and
      > experience with aggregators will avoid?

      So anything that doesn't use OPML isn't any use to people that have used
      aggregators before? Dave has achieved his format lock in? Heh, *not*.
      Mostly because existing tools don't support OPML consistently - my last
      experience was export from RSS Bandit, import to Bottom Feeder - result:
      zilch. Sense and experience tells me that anything's better than OPML,
      hence my advice.

      I have played with OPML import, using SAX, XSLT and crude regexp-style
      parsing, and that is why I wouldn't recommend it. I'll probably support
      a narrow subset, with a minimal bit of detection code to record that the
      imported data was OPML, and hence could include unreadable stuff. If I
      have time then similarly I'll probably put together a wrapper on export
      to cover a subset of OPML. The data might be useful. Maybe. But don't
      expect me to be happy about it or wave the flag. I'm not going to jump
      through hoops to support endless variations on an unspecified theme.

      > Battle cries in the Syndication Wars are fine when you know that
      > everyone listening knows that that's all they are, but in the other
      > world, beyond the battlefield, virtually every aggregator around will
      > import and export OPML,
      > in one flavor or another, to one extent or another. OCS is much
      prettier,
      > and virtually unsupported.

      The cries aren't battle cries, just cries of anguish following time
      spent with OPML. It hurts to have to support this mess, when there are
      clear alternatives.

      There may not be many newsreader/aggregators that support OCS. But every
      tool that uses RDF has support for it. If we allow the agenda to be
      narrowed to what's easy using formats like OPML then we're in a serious
      rut.

      In any case I don't really think the fact that all today's aggregators
      support OPML carries as much weight as you imply - they're pretty much
      all stuck at the same level of sophistication, due in large part to the
      fact that it's not straightforward to extend such formats. Have we
      really reached the limit of what can be done? Glorified electronic
      newpapers? Gimmee a break.

      > Valuable contribution to the syndication community: search out as many

      > examples as you can find, detail the differences, put it on a wiki.

      What's the point? Any attributes are permitted, so it's a task that's
      potentially open ended. I'd rather spend my time developing the
      horseless carriage than following carthorses with a bucket. *

      > One more straw tilting me toward unsubscribing from my very last
      > syndication-related email list: well, you know ;)

      I hadn't checked this list for a week or so, so I guess I must be
      feeling the same way. Maybe I'll unsubscribe for a year or two, come
      back when the evolutionary fork has reached extinction.

      Cheers,
      Danny.

      * unfair on horses, sorry equine dudes




      Yahoo! Groups Links






      BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

      This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
      personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
      stated.
      If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
      Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
      reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
      BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
      Further communication will signify your consent to this.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.