James Holderness wrote:
>>> To date, there has not been such a spec, which makes it difficult for
>>> programmers to find accurate information.  I propose that the RSS
>>> Advisory board approve this spec to fill that gap. Looking for a second.
>> I second the proposal, so board members have the next seven days to
>> vote on the adoption of this spec.
>
> For the record I'm +1.
>
> I'd like to see some of the issues addressed that have been discussed in
> rss-public, but if there are strong objections to any changes I'd be happy
> with the current doc.

I am also +1 on the current spec.

I also agree with all of the points James has raised, and would like to
see another revision incorporating some of them.

-Paul

+1 from me as is.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a revision that addressed the concerns that
have
been expressed around the title attribute, and clarification around HTML vs
XHTML. I
know, for example, that some versions of UserLand's aggregator expect either to
see
a self-closed <link/> tag (XHTML-style) or not -- though I don't remember which,
but
some clarification in the spec would be helpful.

Rogers [& Randy]: You'd said[1] on rss-public that you'd do a revision on the
24th --
is that what I see when I look at http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
right
now?

-Jake

[1] - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-public/message/1102

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
>
> As I've previous written here, we've been working on official
> specification for RSS autodiscovery.
>
> http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
>
> To date, there has not been such a spec, which makes it difficult for
> programmers to find accurate information.  I propose that the RSS
> Advisory board approve this spec to fill that gap. Looking for a second.
> Thanks,
>
> Randy Charles Morin
> http://www.kbcafe.com/rss
>

A new draft of the RSS Feed Autodiscovery specification has been
published:

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery

The board's vote on this proposal ends today, so please let us know if
anything needs to be addressed.

This draft incorporates the following changes based on feedback here
and on Randy's RSS blog.

Major Changes

* removed suggestion to use this spec with Atom

* changed "The link SHOULD be placed within the header ..." to "The
link can be placed within the header ..."

* removed another RFC 2119 verb from the paragraph suggesting one
autodiscovery link per page

* changed the link's title attribute from a MUST to a MAY

* stated that multiple keywords are not permitted as the rel
attribute's value for autodiscovery links

* stated that lowercase is required for rel and type values for
autodiscovery links

* recommended lowercase attribute names for autodiscovery links in HTML

* dropped suggestion that title could have the value "RSS" instead of
the site's name

* indicated that href URLs can be relative when a base URL is defined,
but recommended against using relative URLs

* indicated that when base has been omitted, relative URLs should use
the page's URL as the base URL

Minor Changes

* indicated that the link element can be HTML or XHTML, with links to
each spec

* gave each link attribute its own section

* added two example graphics showing address bars on pages with single
and multiple autodiscovery links

* added James Holderness as a credited author (thanks!)

The proposal to create and publish an RSS Autodiscovery specification
has passed the RSS Advisory Board with members Matthew Bookspan,
Rogers Cadenhead, Jason Douglas, James Holderness, Eric Lunt, Randy
Charles Morin, Paul Querna and Jake Savin voting in favor and no one
voting in opposition:

http://www.rssboard.org/news/70/vote-rss-autodiscovery-specification

rcade wrote:
> A new draft of the RSS Feed Autodiscovery specification has been
> published:
>
> http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
>
> The board's vote on this proposal ends today, so please let us know if
> anything needs to be addressed.

I don't believe its fair to do these kind of major changes and then not
reset the voting period.

Less than two hours after making these changes, you announced that this
vote 'passed' the board.

My recommendation is this:
Version all future specifications. Vote on SPECIFIC versions.  If a new
version is made available, vote on it with a new voting period.  Maybe
we need a deeper separate discussion thread on this.

In the open source world, you would vote on a release tag, rather than
the state of 'trunk'...

> This draft incorporates the following changes based on feedback here
> and on Randy's RSS blog.
>
> Major Changes
>
> * removed suggestion to use this spec with Atom

-1 against this spec with this change.

We should create and support something that works with all feeds, both
RSS and Atom, in an interoperable manner.

-Paul

Paul,
I agree with your concern regarding the timing. So that we don't
appear to be ramming this thru, I would be fine with a re-vote.

As for Atom. We don't really have the right to say how to do
auto-disco with Atom. The Atom WG already have their own auto-disco
spec, which James Snell is pioneering.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.txt

When I originally wrote the RSS auto-disco document there was no spec
for auto-disco in Atom, but James restarted the process with Atom. At
that point, I asked Rogers to remove it, simply to avoid the obvious
political debate that was coming.
Hope that settles your concern,

Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com/rss

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, Paul Querna <pquerna@...> wrote:
>
> rcade wrote:
> > A new draft of the RSS Feed Autodiscovery specification has been
> > published:
> >
> > http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
> >
> > The board's vote on this proposal ends today, so please let us know if
> > anything needs to be addressed.
>
> I don't believe its fair to do these kind of major changes and then not
> reset the voting period.
>
> Less than two hours after making these changes, you announced that this
> vote 'passed' the board.
>
> My recommendation is this:
> Version all future specifications. Vote on SPECIFIC versions.  If a new
> version is made available, vote on it with a new voting period.  Maybe
> we need a deeper separate discussion thread on this.
>
> In the open source world, you would vote on a release tag, rather than
> the state of 'trunk'...
>
> > This draft incorporates the following changes based on feedback here
> > and on Randy's RSS blog.
> >
> > Major Changes
> >
> > * removed suggestion to use this spec with Atom
>
> -1 against this spec with this change.
>
> We should create and support something that works with all feeds, both
> RSS and Atom, in an interoperable manner.
>
> -Paul
>

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, Paul Querna <pquerna@...> wrote:
> I don't believe its fair to do these kind of major changes and then
> not reset the voting period.

> Less than two hours after making these changes, you announced that
> this vote 'passed' the board.

Our charter requires a vote to end after seven days. This is our first
substantive specification, and I think we can address your concerns in
this manner:

1. Vote first to draft a spec, appointing some members who want the
job to an ad-hoc committee that will decide specific edits. (In this
case, Randy, James and I served that kind of function.)

2. When that committee is happy with it, propose and vote on the
spec's passage.

> We should create and support something that works with all feeds,
> both RSS and Atom, in an interoperable manner.

That's still the goal. The references to using our spec with Atom were
removed to avoid stepping on the current effort to finalize and adopt
an Atom autodiscovery spec.

James Snell has proposed that spec and it appears likely to be adopted
relatively soon. I'm working on suggestions for their spec this morning.

Perhaps the best course of action is for us to help Atom's completion
of that spec and then when it's done, propose version 1.1 of our spec
to universalize our spec and address any other concerns that have arisen.

rcade wrote:
> --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, Paul Querna <pquerna@...> wrote:
>> I don't believe its fair to do these kind of major changes and then
>> not reset the voting period.
>
>> Less than two hours after making these changes, you announced that
>> this vote 'passed' the board.
>
> Our charter requires a vote to end after seven days. This is our first
> substantive specification, and I think we can address your concerns in
> this manner:
>
> 1. Vote first to draft a spec, appointing some members who want the
> job to an ad-hoc committee that will decide specific edits. (In this
> case, Randy, James and I served that kind of function.)
>
> 2. When that committee is happy with it, propose and vote on the
> spec's passage.

This sounds acceptable to me, as long as in number 2, you are voting on
a spec that does not change, at all, during the voting period.  Any
changes to me mean its a different spec, and should be voted on separately.

I personally don't think there is a need to define anything like an
ad-hoc committee; The Open RSS-Public List seems to have been working
quite well for funneling feedback and revisions.

-Paul

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, Paul Querna <pquerna@...> wrote:
> This sounds acceptable to me, as long as in number 2, you are voting
> on a spec that does not change, at all, during the voting period.
> Any changes to me mean its a different spec, and should be voted on
> separately.

That's a good rule of thumb. We should freeze a proposal's language
when the voting period begins. If changes need to be made before the
vote ends, the proponent can table the proposal and resubmit it.

+1

On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:27 AM, rcade wrote:

> --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, Paul Querna <pquerna@...> wrote:
> > This sounds acceptable to me, as long as in number 2, you are voting
> > on a spec that does not change, at all, during the voting period.
> > Any changes to me mean its a different spec, and should be voted on
> > separately.
>
> That's a good rule of thumb. We should freeze a proposal's language
> when the voting period begins. If changes need to be made before the
> vote ends, the proponent can table the proposal and resubmit it.
>
>
>

WHAT-WG is actively seeking input on their definition of feed
autodiscovery links, which is part of a Web Applications 1.0
specification under development they hope will become the next version
of HTML/XHTML/DOM.

Today, they edited their spec to add the requirement that the first
autodiscovery link in a page is the default feed:

http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#feed0

"The first link, a, or area element in the document (in tree order)
that creates a hyperlink with the link type feed must be treated as
the default syndication feed for the purposes of feed autodiscovery."

On the Atom-Syntax list today, they're debating whether to publish
their own autodiscovery specification or informational document or
defer the topic to WHAT-WG.

Lachlan Hunt, one of the WHAT-WG folks, published a long response to
our spec here:

http://www.rssboard.org/news/70#14499

Ignoring all other problems, can we re-vote on the auto-disco, just to
be sure that everybody agrees with the current spec.
http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery

I hope everybody understands the concern regarding Atom. But if you
don't, then ping me and I'll try to explain further.
Thanks,

Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com/rss

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
> Ignoring all other problems, can we re-vote on the auto-disco, just to
> be sure that everybody agrees with the current spec.
> http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery

I second the proposal to reopen the RSS autodiscovery specification
for a vote. This begins one week of discussion followed by one week of
voting. Changes, if any, will only be made during the discussion period.

Since we're putting this back on the floor, I think we should consider
recasting the autodiscovery specification as an autodiscovery profile,
a set of best-practice recommendations for implementing autodiscovery.

The following sentences would be added to the Introduction:

"This profile is a set of recommendations for how to implement feed
autodiscovery in web documents to work in web browsers and other
client software that supports the technique.

"The definitions of HTML and XHTML elements in this profile are
provided for convenience and must not be treated as definitive. Refer
to the HTML and XHTML specifications for authorititive guidance on
those formats."

Another sentence would be added to the Conventions section:

"This profile relies primarily on tests conducted with Microsoft
Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9."

If additional browsers and clients are added to the test group, they'd
be mentioned here as well.

I would prefer it be a spec, not a profile.

Randy


--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>
> Since we're putting this back on the floor, I think we should consider
> recasting the autodiscovery specification as an autodiscovery profile,
> a set of best-practice recommendations for implementing autodiscovery.
>
> The following sentences would be added to the Introduction:
>
> "This profile is a set of recommendations for how to implement feed
> autodiscovery in web documents to work in web browsers and other
> client software that supports the technique.
>
> "The definitions of HTML and XHTML elements in this profile are
> provided for convenience and must not be treated as definitive. Refer
> to the HTML and XHTML specifications for authorititive guidance on
> those formats."
>
> Another sentence would be added to the Conventions section:
>
> "This profile relies primarily on tests conducted with Microsoft
> Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9."
>
> If additional browsers and clients are added to the test group, they'd
> be mentioned here as well.
>

+1

> Since we're putting this back on the floor, I think we should consider
> recasting the autodiscovery specification as an autodiscovery profile,
> a set of best-practice recommendations for implementing autodiscovery.
>
> The following sentences would be added to the Introduction:
>
> "This profile is a set of recommendations for how to implement feed
> autodiscovery in web documents to work in web browsers and other
> client software that supports the technique.
>
> "The definitions of HTML and XHTML elements in this profile are
> provided for convenience and must not be treated as definitive. Refer
> to the HTML and XHTML specifications for authorititive guidance on
> those formats."
>
> Another sentence would be added to the Conventions section:
>
> "This profile relies primarily on tests conducted with Microsoft
> Internet Explorer 7, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9."
>
> If additional browsers and clients are added to the test group, they'd
> be mentioned here as well.

Yahoo Groups produces invalid author elements in its RSS 2.0 feeds --
they aren't valid e-mail addresses.

Though this is a minor error for most consumers of the feeds, the RSS
Advisory Board doesn't inspire much confidence by using invalid feeds.

I wrote a PHP script that fixes the error, producing what should be
valid feeds for both of our lists:

http://www.rssboard.org/yahoo-groups-feed/rss-public
http://www.rssboard.org/yahoo-groups-feed/rss-board

Users can subscribe to these URLs to read feeds that should be valid.
They're written using the Magpie RSS Parser for PHP.

The script caches feeds for 10 minutes and fixes three errors:

1. The author element is transformed into a dc:creator element.

2. If pubDate is empty, it isn't included in an item.

3. If author is empty, it isn't included as dc:creator.

The last two errors occur in a feed Yahoo generates for groups that
don't offer RSS, like this one:

http://www.rssboard.org/yahoo-groups-feed/bobkempfans

If it works, I'll release the code as an example of how to parse and
republish RSS 2.0 feeds in PHP.

The draft spec for RSS 2.0 has been updated:

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1

Changes:

1. In item-description, changed "The description MUST be suitable for
presentation as HTML ..." to "The description SHOULD be suitable for
presentation as HTML ..."

2. Removed Sam Ruby's name from the credits at his request.

3. Updated the Trackback Namespace link in the introduction to
http://www.rssboard.org/trackback

4. Converted the document to valid XHTML 1.0.

To my knowledge, this is all of the outstanding issues that needed to
be resolved.

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
>
> Ignoring all other problems, can we re-vote on the auto-disco, just to
> be sure that everybody agrees with the current spec.
> http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery

The seven-day revote begins today on the RSS Autodiscovery spec. The
text has not been revised since the last vote.

I vote Yes.

There may be a point at which we should reconsider this spec because
of universal feed autodiscovery documentation like Robert Sayre's site
[1] or the work being done on HTML at WHAT-WG, but in the meantime our
spec helps RSS publishers make it work in today's browsers.

1: http://www.feedautodiscovery.org/

I vote yes. I just wanted to confirm that previous votes on the
subject will be voided by this one. So, everybody has to re-vote. Correct?
Thanks,

Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com/rss


--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>
> The seven-day revote begins today on the RSS Autodiscovery spec. The
> text has not been revised since the last vote.
>
> I vote Yes.
>
> There may be a point at which we should reconsider this spec because
> of universal feed autodiscovery documentation like Robert Sayre's site
> [1] or the work being done on HTML at WHAT-WG, but in the meantime our
> spec helps RSS publishers make it work in today's browsers.
>
> 1: http://www.feedautodiscovery.org/
>

+1 from Eric Lunt

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
>
> I vote yes. I just wanted to confirm that previous votes on the
> subject will be voided by this one. So, everybody has to re-vote.
Correct?
> Thanks,
>
> Randy Charles Morin
> http://www.kbcafe.com/rss
>
>
> --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@> wrote:
> >
> > The seven-day revote begins today on the RSS Autodiscovery spec. The
> > text has not been revised since the last vote.
> >
> > I vote Yes.
> >
> > There may be a point at which we should reconsider this spec because
> > of universal feed autodiscovery documentation like Robert Sayre's site
> > [1] or the work being done on HTML at WHAT-WG, but in the meantime our
> > spec helps RSS publishers make it work in today's browsers.
> >
> > 1: http://www.feedautodiscovery.org/
> >
>

On 12/7/06, Randy Morin <randy@...> wrote:
> I vote yes. I just wanted to confirm that previous votes on the
>  subject will be voided by this one. So, everybody has to re-vote. Correct?

Yep. Everyone needs to vote again.

Yes from me. -Jake


On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

> On 12/7/06, Randy Morin <randy@...> wrote:
> > I vote yes. I just wanted to confirm that previous votes on the
> > subject will be voided by this one. So, everybody has to re-vote.
> Correct?
>
> Yep. Everyone needs to vote again.
>
>

> On 12/7/06, Randy Morin <randy@...> wrote:
>> I vote yes. I just wanted to confirm that previous votes on the
>>  subject will be voided by this one. So, everybody has to re-vote.
>> Correct?
>
> Yep. Everyone needs to vote again.

I'm sorry if this is late. I still vote yes.

+1

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@...> wrote:
>
> Ignoring all other problems, can we re-vote on the auto-disco, just to
> be sure that everybody agrees with the current spec.
> http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
>
> I hope everybody understands the concern regarding Atom. But if you
> don't, then ping me and I'll try to explain further.
> Thanks,
>
> Randy Charles Morin
> http://www.kbcafe.com/rss
>

--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Douglas" <jdouglas@...> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@> wrote:
> >
> > Ignoring all other problems, can we re-vote on the auto-disco, just
to
> > be sure that everybody agrees with the current spec.
> > http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery
> >
> > I hope everybody understands the concern regarding Atom. But if you
> > don't, then ping me and I'll try to explain further.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Randy Charles Morin
> > http://www.kbcafe.com/rss
> >
>
+1

... with Matthew Bookspan, Rogers Cadenhead, Jason Douglas, James
Holderness, Eric Lunt, Randy Charles Morin and Jake Savin voting in
favor and no one voting in opposition.

http://www.rssboard.org/news/70

I just heard from Ross Mayfield, who's resigning the RSS Advisory
Board because of other obligations. We still get to keep our
SocialText wiki.

This means we've got two spots available for people with a background
in some facet of RSS, whether as a developer, publisher, educator or
some other area we shouldn't overlook.

I appreciate Ross' effort to serve on the board.

The RSS Advisory Board's charter stipulates that the chair serves a
two-year term that begins Feb. 1 of odd-numbered years. I'm interested
in continuing as chair for the next two years.

During that term, I'd like to see the board publish the RSS Profile
[1] and the clean rewrite of the RSS 2.0 Specification [2]. I believe
that following the RSS roadmap means freezing the RSS 2.0 elements and
attributes and all defined behavior, but does not require freezing the
language of the current spec.

However, as I hope board members have seen over the past year, I'm
pretty conservative in my approach to our mission. I'd rather work
through issues patiently and help incrementally where we can, which is
why I'm still puttering away on the spec rewrite one year after its
first draft.

1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile
2: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1

If anyone else wants to run for chair, please announce within the next
week. A chair's election requires an absolute majority -- presently 7
out of 13 votes.

You got my vote!

I think in the next year we have to focus on the profile in order to
get it done without another year of delays. I think everybody would
like to see this and it could easily pass.

On the other hand, I think the draft spec is trouble and should be put
on hold until we have more community support.
MHO,

Randy


--- In rss-board@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>
> The RSS Advisory Board's charter stipulates that the chair serves a
> two-year term that begins Feb. 1 of odd-numbered years. I'm interested
> in continuing as chair for the next two years.
>
> During that term, I'd like to see the board publish the RSS Profile
> [1] and the clean rewrite of the RSS 2.0 Specification [2]. I believe
> that following the RSS roadmap means freezing the RSS 2.0 elements and
> attributes and all defined behavior, but does not require freezing the
> language of the current spec.
>
> However, as I hope board members have seen over the past year, I'm
> pretty conservative in my approach to our mission. I'd rather work
> through issues patiently and help incrementally where we can, which is
> why I'm still puttering away on the spec rewrite one year after its
> first draft.
>
> 1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile
> 2: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-draft-1
>
> If anyone else wants to run for chair, please announce within the next
> week. A chair's election requires an absolute majority -- presently 7
> out of 13 votes.
>