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

Re: [videoblogging] Tagging in ANT

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Haugstrup
    On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1) ... No, for any kind of web content. ... I didn t say that. But when you have content meant for
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
      On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1)
      <julianduk@...> wrote:

      >> That's the problem. Blogs (and other web-content providers) should never
      >> publish information only in their feeds.
      >
      > Can you provide a rationale for that to be applied universally, and do
      > you just mean text feeds?

      No, for any kind of web content.

      > Is there an implication that there
      > should be a parallel blog for *all* RSS feeds>

      I didn't say that. But when you have content meant for the web (eg. not
      syndication of tv shows via RSS or something) your feed should correspond
      with your web content.

      It's very simple really. Your RSS feed will only be available for a week
      or so until the item gets pushed off. So if the information isn't
      available on a webpage it's gone. It's not cool when your tags expire
      after a week, and even less cool when your enclosures expire after a week.

      When you are blogging you need to think about your webpage first, and your
      feed second, because the webpage is the permanent location. It's that
      document people can link to, it's that page they'll be coming back to.

      - Andreas
      --
      <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
      Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
    • Andreas Haugstrup
      ... No, anyone can read and understand Technorati tags. That s why you should be using them. Even if Technorati goes away a new service could pick up without
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
        On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:59:03 -0500, Adam Quirk <bullemhead@...> wrote:

        >> Yeah, they look at your RSS feed as well, and it's a stupid practice.
        >>
        > Expound on this. I need a learnin' to.
        >
        > I know just from a gut feeling that I really shouldn't be tagging any
        > of my stuff with "technorati" in it. When I'm 40, Technorati will not
        > be in human vocabulary.

        No, anyone can read and understand Technorati tags. That's why you should
        be using them. Even if Technorati goes away a new service could pick up
        without any old tags having been lost.

        --
        <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
        Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
      • Andreas Haugstrup
        On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan ... No, that s overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There s no need
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
          On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
          wrote:

          > More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
          > engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
          > should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
          > avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
          > content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
          > provide linking to these local xml files.

          No, that's overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There's no
          need to complicate matters with having two files. The permalink is so
          wonderful because it's the place to link to. If you suddenly have two
          places to link to for the same content the power of the permalink goes
          away.

          - Andreas
          --
          <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
          Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
        • Andreas Haugstrup
          On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:47 -0500, Michael Sullivan ... Oh, like that. That s how my blog is archived. 12 xml files a year with my
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
            On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:20:47 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
            wrote:

            > true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for
            > some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then
            > having these backup xml files, even with xslt to present them in
            > style.... is a nice option to have...especially if your blog/site is
            > second priority to the actual distribution of your content for
            > aggregators to retrieve.

            Oh, like that. That's how my blog is archived. 12 xml files a year with my
            posts. Actually the xml files are xhtml files. :o)

            Anyway, don't make those public in addition to your public archives. One
            permalink. :o)

            > Some people use rss feed generators to create content and do not use a
            > blog.
            > They are just concerned with getting content into feed readers.
            > In these cases, they are creating xml files, not blog posts.

            Yeah, I wasn't talking about those people. They're not a part of the web,
            and since I deal with blogs (especially on this list) they're not
            interesting to me. In those cases you're just using HTTP+RSS as a delivery
            mechanism - there's no actual web stuff going on.

            - Andreas
            --
            <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
            Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
          • Michael Sullivan
            More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters, should be used so that
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
              More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
              engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
              should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
              avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
              content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
              provide linking to these local xml files.

              sull


              On Apr 1, 2005 9:01 AM, Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...> wrote:
              >
              > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:49:06 +0100, Julian Doncaster (Yahoo1)
              > <julianduk@...> wrote:
              >
              > >> That's the problem. Blogs (and other web-content providers) should never
              > >> publish information only in their feeds.
              > >
              > > Can you provide a rationale for that to be applied universally, and do
              > > you just mean text feeds?
              >
              > No, for any kind of web content.
              >
              > > Is there an implication that there
              > > should be a parallel blog for *all* RSS feeds>
              >
              > I didn't say that. But when you have content meant for the web (eg. not
              > syndication of tv shows via RSS or something) your feed should correspond
              > with your web content.
              >
              > It's very simple really. Your RSS feed will only be available for a week
              > or so until the item gets pushed off. So if the information isn't
              > available on a webpage it's gone. It's not cool when your tags expire
              > after a week, and even less cool when your enclosures expire after a week.
              >
              > When you are blogging you need to think about your webpage first, and your
              > feed second, because the webpage is the permanent location. It's that
              > document people can link to, it's that page they'll be coming back to.
              >
              > - Andreas
              > --
              > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
              > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              --
              ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
              i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
              =====================
            • Michael Sullivan
              true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then having these backup xml
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 1, 2005
                true. i thought you were referring to cases when the content is for
                some reason no longer available, no post, no perma, no feed. Then
                having these backup xml files, even with xslt to present them in
                style.... is a nice option to have...especially if your blog/site is
                second priority to the actual distribution of your content for
                aggregators to retrieve.

                I dont think having 12 xml files a year stored lcoally (if generated
                monthly) is overkill. You could even host them elswhere outside of
                your blog environment if needed.

                Some people use rss feed generators to create content and do not use a blog.
                They are just concerned with getting content into feed readers.
                In these cases, they are creating xml files, not blog posts.

                Not really disagreeing with you... just added babble =)

                sull

                On Apr 1, 2005 11:02 AM, Andreas Haugstrup <videoblog@...> wrote:
                >
                > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:59:01 -0500, Michael Sullivan <sulleleven@...>
                > wrote:
                >
                > > More use of locally stored xml files that get generated by the blog
                > > engine...such as for monthly archives or other defined parameters,
                > > should be used so that this problem (expiring posts/feed items) is
                > > avoided. Whatever happens to your webpage and your dynamic blog
                > > content wont effect the loss or inability to retrieve data if you
                > > provide linking to these local xml files.
                >
                > No, that's overkill. Save the damn info in the damn HTML page. There's no
                > need to complicate matters with having two files. The permalink is so
                > wonderful because it's the place to link to. If you suddenly have two
                > places to link to for the same content the power of the permalink goes
                > away.
                >
                > - Andreas
                > --
                > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
                > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                --
                ~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~
                i n t e r d i g i t a t e . c o m
                =====================
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.