Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
rss-board
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #281 of 317 |
Re: [rss-board] Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

+1

--
Ryan Parman
<http://ryanparman.com>




On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:41 PM, "scamden" <sterling@...>
wrote:

> I vote in favor of all of these proposed edits.
>
> --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>>
>> Today begins the seven-day vote on the six proposed admin edits to
>> the RSS spec.
>>
>> I've restated the proposal in full here:
>>
>> I'd like the board to consider some administrative changes that
>> have been long-needed on the RSS 2.0 specification. These edits
>> have no implications to the elements and attributes that make up
>> the RSS format.
>>
>> I'd like the board to adopt all of the following six edits to the
>> spec:
>>
>> 1. The spec, unlike the RSS Profile, does not contain a link to the
>> Feed Validator. I'd like to add this sentence to the About a
>> Document [1] section: "RSS documents can be tested for validity in
>> the RSS Validator [2]."
>>
>> 2. The About the Document section contains two incorrect
>> statements: "This document represents the status of RSS as of the
>> Fall of 2002, version 2.0.1. It incorporates all changes and
>> additions, starting with the basic spec for RSS 0.91 (June 2000)
>> and includes new features introduced in RSS 0.92 (December 2000)
>> and RSS 0.94 (August 2002)."
>>
>> The reference to RSS 0.94 is incorrect -- that version was
>> withdrawn right after publication and renumbered as RSS 2.0. Also,
>> the Fall 2002 date and 2.0.1 version number are seven years out of
>> date. The current document version number and publication date are
>> identified in the Archivist's Note atop the specification.
>>
>> I'd like to change these two paragraphs to the single sentence
>> "This document represents the current status of RSS, incorporating
>> all changes and additions starting with the basic spec for RSS 0.91
>> (June 2000) and follows RSS 0.92 (December 2000), RSS 2.0 (August
>> 2002), and RSS 2.0.1 (July 2003)." Each of the old specs on
>> rssboard.org would be linked in the paragraph.
>>
>> 3. In the Enclosure section [3], the use case for the element is
>> not hosted at rssboard.org and is intermittently unavailable or
>> slow due to server crashes. I'd like to change the link to a
>> locally hosted copy of the use case document at [4]. We're already
>> doing this for other documentation required by the specification in
>> the cloud [5] and item [6] sections.
>>
>> 4. The Comments section [7] also links to an external document
>> required by the spec. I'd like to change the link to a locally
>> hosted copy of the document at [8].
>>
>> 5. The ttl section [9] contains a link to Gnutella that has been
>> broken for years. I'd like to remove this link.
>>
>> 6. The definitions for skipHours and skipDays in the supporting
>> document [10] are extremely short. I'd like to bring them into the
>> specification's optional channel elements section [11] by replacing
>> "More info here" with the definitions.
>>
>> skipHours becomes "A hint for aggregators telling them which hours
>> they can skip. This element contains up to 24 <hour> sub-elements
>> whose value is a number between 0 and 23, representing a time in
>> GMT, when aggregators, if they support the feature, may not read
>> the channel on hours listed in the skipHours element. The hour
>> beginning at midnight is hour zero."
>>
>> skipDays becomes "A hint for aggregators telling them which days
>> they can skip. This element contains up to seven <day> sub-elements
>> whose value is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday,
>> Saturday or Sunday. Aggregators may not read the channel during
>> days listed in the skipDays element."
>>
>> The only change I made in copying the definitions over is changing
>> "An XML element" to "This element". No elements in the spec are
>> defined by calling them "XML elements."
>>
>> 1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#aboutThisDocument
>> 2: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-validator
>> 3:
http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltenclosuregtSubelementOfLtitemgt
>> 4: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-enclosures-use-case
>> 5: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltcloudgtSubelementOfLtchannelgt
>> 6: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#hrelementsOfLtitemgt
>> 7: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#hrelementsOfLtitemgt
>> 8: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-weblog-comments-use-case
>> 9: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltttlgtSubelementOfLtchannelgt
>> 10: http://www.rssboard.org/skip-hours-days
>> 11: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#optionalChannelElements
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>



Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:23 am

skyzyxufks
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #281 of 317 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Today begins the seven-day vote on the six proposed admin edits to the RSS spec. I've restated the proposal in full here: I'd like the board to consider some...
rcade
Offline Send Email
Mar 20, 2009
6:09 pm

I vote +1 for these changes. Thanks, Paul...
Paul Querna
pquerna
Offline Send Email
Mar 20, 2009
6:22 pm

I vote in favor of all of these proposed edits....
scamden
Offline Send Email
Mar 20, 2009
11:41 pm

+1 -- Ryan Parman <http://ryanparman.com> On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:41 PM, "scamden" <sterling@...>...
Ryan Parman
skyzyxufks
Online Now Send Email
Mar 21, 2009
12:23 am

I vote yes for the proposal....
rcade
Offline Send Email
Mar 21, 2009
2:04 am

... In the interests of completeness, I noticed another difference between the two versions of the enclosure use-case document: ...
James Holderness
james_holder...
Offline Send Email
Mar 22, 2009
12:15 pm

I vote +1 for all changes. I just want to share my 2cents about the following edit. ... [10] are extremely short. I'd like to bring them into the...
Simone Carletti
wepposcarletti
Offline Send Email
Mar 22, 2009
5:03 pm

I vote in favor of the edits...
Randy Morin
randymorin
Offline Send Email
Mar 25, 2009
3:43 pm

All the amendments are approved. Voting Results were 7-0 in favor. For: Querna,Camdem,Parman,Cadenhead,Holderness,Carletti,Morin Against: none Didn't vote:...
Randy Morin
randymorin
Offline Send Email
Mar 28, 2009
3:26 pm
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help