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

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

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 #285 of 292 |
Re: Vote: 6 Admin Edits to RSS Spec

I vote in favor of the 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 The reference to RSS 0.94 is incorrect -- that version was withdrawn right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version number are seven years out of date.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
>





Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:26 pm

randymorin
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #285 of 292 |
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
Offline 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