DeWitt Clinton: But what if you wanted to put something interesting
inside a syndicated content feed? What if you wanted to put valid XHTML
in a feed? You went through the trouble of writing XHTML, why should it
be flattened to an opaque blob of "maybe plain text maybe escaped HTML
but I'm not really sure"? What if you added semantic microformat markup
to your HTML?
DeWitt Clinton: But what if you wanted to put something interesting inside a syndicated content feed? What if you wanted to put valid XHTML in a feed? You went...
Aristotle, Are you implying that we shouldn't bother trying? I think we should. Hopefully, the rest of the RSS Advisory Board is on the same page. Thanks, ...
Hi Randy, ... not at all! Sorry if I gave that impression. I was reacting to ... I meant that I doubt you will ever be able to say that RSS2 is on par with...
... Personally, I would love to see RSS fully support XHTML. Since the spec is frozen, I'm curious as to how this would be accomplished in the profile. Does...
Yes, my understanding is that the profile would recommend extensions. This simply hasn't happened yet. Thanks, Randy Charles Morin http://www.kbcafe.com/rss ...
... Yeah, me too. ... A good start would be to get the current board members to support it or at least commit to supporting it in their products. So far it...
... Woops, yeah. I was looking at them in an app that unescaped them automagically. Thanks for catching that. -- Mark Woodman http://markwoodman.com...
... In around 10 days I'm going to begin a final 30-day push to finish the first version of the RSS Profile and propose it to the board. If it is approved,...
Rogers, I personally, would rather go with xhtml:body, as many aggregators already support it. Whereas atom:content would be something entirely new. MHO, Randy...
... Thinking over this again, I'm not sure that it matters. If you want to include xhtml:body in a feed as Randy is suggesting you're still going to be ...
James, Agreed, the recommendation should be to use xhtml:body in addition to description, not instead. Thanks, Randy Charles Morin http://www.kbcafe.com/rss ...
... going to be ... compatibility. So ... still be ... An issue with this thinking is that RSS implementors don't have an order of precedence when several...
Rogers, If we limit inclusion to stable XML vocabularies and avoid volatile ones, then we should never have this problem. I doubt xhtml:body, content:encoded...
... By that criterion, the IETF-ratified Atom 1.0 is the strongest candidate for namespaced extensions: it’s never ever going to change. SCNR :), -- ...
... I think great care should be taken to pick extensions for mention in the profile. The overarching, all-consuming goal at this point is interoperability....
... content:encoded was designed for RSS 1.0. xhtml:body was designed for XHTML. atom:content was designed for Atom. None of them are likely to ever describe...
... At FeedBurner, we have an informal precedence based upon the body of feeds that we've seen. Basically, if an item has both content:encoded and description,...
Point of information ... I thought that one could legitimitely embed CDATA sections in RSS feeds. XHTML can go in CDATA sections, can it not? Aggregators...
... Double-escaping and CDATA sections are one and the same. Both are opaque string blobs as far as the XML parser is concerned. Double-escaped XHTML data is a...
Yeah, I'm with Randy on this. Last time I checked I found 9 aggregators that supported xhtml:body in some form or other, but only one that supported ...
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.
Offline 
Send Email