Subscribe: Comments on: Getting the RSS 2.0 namespace right
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
agree people  borrowing xml  borrowing  document  don  doug  elements  implies  namespace  people implies  ringnalda  things  work  xml 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Getting the RSS 2.0 namespace right

Comments on Getting the RSS 2.0 namespace right

a digital magpie

Updated: 2016-10-24T13:44:47Z


By: Doug Ransom


Given RSS 2.0 a namespace, we should take the time to roll it into an XHTML module, as the work will be so minimal to integrate these things for even simpler syndication.


By: Dan Brickley


Having a namespace associated with all elements in RSS 2.0 documents would definitely be a good thing. For those elements that are in RSS 1.0, how about using the RSS 1.0 namespace? Fancier new things that are peculiar to RSS 2.0 could live in their own ns which from an RSS 1.0 perspective would work just as other RSS 1.0 extension modules work.

By: Phil Ringnalda


In some ways, I quite like using the RSS 1.0 namespace for item/title/description/link. I don’t agree with the people who say that doing so implies that the whole document be a valid RDF/RSS 1.0 document, though I’m certainly not the XML expert to be saying whether borrowing an XML element implies that you are complying with every restriction imposed on the document, or whether borrowing the XML-RDF syntax from an RDF schema implies that you are producing RDF.

However, they aren’t actually a match. If you don’t have any problem with doing RSS 1.0 items, then it works just fine, but an RSS 1.0 item is (title, link, description?) while an RSS 2.0 item is ((title|description), link?) [that’s not right, is it? how do you say ’one or both’?], so you can’t namespace an RSS 2.0 item that consists of a description and link only in an RSS 1.0 item.

By: dive into mark


In brief: insomniac edition

A little of everything. I mean, why not? I’m up anyway.

By: Raw Blog


Tools rhymes with Fools (RSS 2.0 namespace)

Just for a change I’m not going to comment on the problems of RSS 2.0 itself (or what that a

By: Random Ross Rader


Getting the RSS 2.0 namespace right

phil ringnalda dot com:

only other option that wil…