RSS is getting more complicated
So I'm catching up on my feeds today, when I spot one that seemingly has no content. This is odd, so I go to look at the feed source. There's no <description> tag! Ok, looking at the RSS 2.0 spec, that's technically legal. InadvisableIMHO, but legal. So where's the description? In a <content:encoded> - the namespace is defined, right at the top of the document. Easy enough to deal with - a quick modification to the Constructor code, and BottomFeeder is back in business.
The only thing is, I don't get it. What's the point of moving the description to a namespaced element? The namespace in question is part of the RSS 1.0 (RDF) module system, but - What's the benefit?
Comments
Re: RSS is getting more complicated
[Michael Lucas-Smith] May 4, 2003 21:34:47.918
Comment on RSS is getting more complicated by Michael Lucas-Smith
Namespaces let you extend things further than a single spec. You can mix and blend specs. See the Geolocation stuff they've been adding to blogs so that you can point out where a blogger is located
Re: RSS is getting more complicated
[James Robertson] May 4, 2003 22:08:55.329
Comment on RSS is getting more complicated by James Robertson
Michael, I guess I wasn't clear (all too common a problem). In general, RSS modules have value. However, link and description are common tags in use in all versions of RSS. Slapping those elements into a module is just silly, IMHO. Not all aggregators will pick it up (at least not right off). The goal of an RSS feed is to advertise your content. So while aggregators should be liberal in what they accept, producers should be far more conservative in what they put out. At least IMHO