RSS version update?

technosailor · 2005-11-14 03:13:29

My apologies with no name calling. :-)

I was very brash, I know. Let me explain where I’m coming from. I don’t mind using Atom. However I want to use RSS. RSS 0.92 does not support pubDate. It’s not simply a matter of labelling differences. And while you may find Atom to be a perfectly acceptable alternative (and it is in many cases), the assumption that it is and should therefore be accepted universally is not acceptable to me.

Now having had another conversation on the matter, I realize development is ongoing and for that I’m very grateful. I will do my best to assist in this process because, for some, Atom is not an acceptable alternative.

You may also want to take a look at the RSS 2.0 spec if you are not familiar with it. It provides samples for an 0.92 feed and a 2.0 feed.

They are very different. Not just label different.

There…no name calling. :-)

Mary · 2005-11-14 03:38:59

They are very different. Not just label different.

Which is exactly what we’ve been saying. You misunderstand the reasoning, as well as the developers’ experience and motivation.

Unfortunately, RSS is plagued by ambiguous and sometimes contradictory specifications, and a confusing plethora of competing standards.

That’s still very true.

You want RSS 2.0? Okay, no one is invalidating your choice. Sure, sit still long enough and I’d tell you: use Atom, because I personally like it better. Which is not the same as saying, “We won’t ever support RSS, so go away”.

The problem is when you have at least nine different versions, all incompatible with one another, which one do you pick? There have been ones invented before and after 2.0. In addition, how do you know “they” won’t invent another new standard, also incompatible with the rest?

Indeed, the WordPress developers just figured to cover a couple different ones (that feature may actually be from B2, I honestly don’t know), but even it does not cover them all. I don’t like the idea of that. Reality arrives: one or more of the alternate versions won’t be truly supported, because of the effort and time needed to cover them all. And so we return to “pick a version, any version”.

This is also not the only feed-related issue being dealt with, some arguably more important, and there has been little input from anyone except “Give me RSS 2.0.” That’s a valid request, but you see that doesn’t actually help anyone get the work done.

1beb · 2005-11-14 06:42:33

Permission to flame the ungrateful?

michaelkpate · 2005-11-14 20:32:15

> technosailor wrote:

> My advice to Dean and friends, don’t wait for a standard. Do it yourself. Just do it.

That sums up the entirely reason Atom was created in the first place so much less verbosely than Mark Pilgrim did years ago.

Any resemblance between RSS and “a standard” is purely coincidental.

zem · 2005-11-14 22:33:02

I’ve spoken with TS in email, and he’s offered to help with RSS 2.0.

Forget the flames. Put the energy into something constructive instead.

NyteOwl · 2005-11-15 03:23:45

Sicne 2.0 is (theoretically anyway) backward compatible with 0.92, I suppose that support for 1.0 is out of the question?

zem · 2005-11-15 05:41:02

I suppose that support for 1.0 is out of the question?

You tell me. The problem with the various RSS specs is that they allow lots of room for interpretation, and provide little or no guidance on which way to do things, or how to decide which standard to select. (Take content encoding, for example: even just in RSS 2.0 I’ve seen at least three different approaches to HTML escaping in the main content field alone, not counting the title etc; and there’s absolutely no advice in the spec, nor any ancillary documentation or official guidance I can find, as to what method we should use, what problems we might run into, or even the slightest hint as to how RSS readers might interpret each.) So I’m waiting for someone who knows this stuff – even just a small part of it – to fill in the gaps.

ubernostrum · 2005-11-15 06:31:49

RSS 1.0 is both a blessing and a curse; being reformulated in RDF/XML does provide some interesting applications for RDF-aware parsers, but the downside is that nearly everything useful in it is in the RDF or some other namespace.

zem: for what it’s worth, my vote on content encoding is to just dump the article’s XHTML in a DIV with the XHTML namespace. I’ve never seen it fail, and that gets around some of the worst headaches of the content:encoded and CDATA methods — invariably, something gets escaped or unescaped one time too many or one too few.

michaelkpate · 2005-11-15 13:33:35

All kidding aside, I support adding RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0 support to TxP. That will make everyone happy (except, perhaps, the developers). Unfortunately, at this point, each format has a substantial group of supporters who disdain using the other formats for all sorts of reasons.

Fully supporting all three will be the best way to get all of us on to other more important subject.

zem · 2005-11-15 23:49:36

my vote on content encoding is to just dump the article’s XHTML in a DIV with the XHTML namespace. I’ve never seen it fail, and that gets around some of the worst headaches of the content:encoded and CDATA methods—invariably, something gets escaped or unescaped one time too many or one too few.

We need examples for the specific cases shown here – start with the RSS 0.92 sample feed, and edit it to transform it into 1.0.

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#13 2005-11-14 03:13:29

Re: RSS version update?

#14 2005-11-14 03:38:59

Re: RSS version update?

#15 2005-11-14 06:42:33

Re: RSS version update?

#16 2005-11-14 20:32:15

Re: RSS version update?

#17 2005-11-14 22:33:02

Re: RSS version update?

#18 2005-11-15 03:23:45

Re: RSS version update?

#19 2005-11-15 05:41:02

Re: RSS version update?

#20 2005-11-15 06:31:49

Re: RSS version update?

#21 2005-11-15 13:33:35

Re: RSS version update?

#22 2005-11-15 23:49:36

Re: RSS version update?

Board footer