Re: [Slashcode-development] RSS 1.0

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 16:19 +0000 2000.12.04, Dave Aiello wrote:
>> OK, here is a list of the data for stories that we have available,
>> that we might want to put in to RSS 1.0 files.  I listed pretty much
>> all the data for stories, and just a few things for site.  Comments
>> welcome.
>>
>> The purpose of this is to put these items into available RSS fields,
>> either in the RSS core in Dublin Core, or in our own Slash XML module.
>>
>> From here, we could then move on to defining fields for comments
>> and users, and any other data we want to search on, for the purpose
>> of returning search data to users and to any other searches we want
>> to enable.
>>
>
>CTDATA supports RSS 0.91 on all of its Slash 0.3-based sites.  In our RSS file
>creation process we map introtext to description.  The description field is
>used by a number of RSS aggregation sites, including my.userland.com and
>xmltree.com.
>
>Is there any reason why this same approach would not be advisable under RSS
>1.0, apart from the fact that some people in the RSS 1.0 working group have
>tried to "route around" RSS 0.91, apparently for political reasons?

Well, it is not so much political reasons, but philosophical reasons.  RSS
0.9 was "RDF Site Summary."  RSS 0.91 dropped the "RDF."  They think RDF is
the right way to go, so went back to RDF.  This is better IMO because with
RSS 0.91 and its path, to extend RSS you needed to come out with a new
version of RSS.  With RSS 1.0, you can extend it by adding new modules.
Very nice, IMO.

And that's the whole point: we now have a set of metadata for these
stories, and we want to include them in our RSS files.  With RSS 0.91, we
would have to find a way to squeeze them into existing elements.  With RSS
1.0, we can see if existing elements work for us, and for those remaining
elements, we can create a new module and add them in there.  We will try to
use existing elements, just like you do under 0.91.  But where those
elements don't work, we will create our own.

Does this make sense, or did I miss your point?  Thanks,

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/