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

Re: [videoblogging] Tagging in ANT

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Apr 1 8:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 20 , Apr 1 8:38 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 20 , Apr 1 8:59 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Apr 1 9:20 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.