RE: [syndication] Re: [radio-userland] First 24 hours completed

["Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>]

Howdy,

0.92 seems a return to scriptingNews format, with HTML being embedded into
the description in lieu of a title or link.  This is why 0.9x has been
dubbed "upward-compatible" rather than backward-compatible.

Since title and link are the two fields most likely to be used by
aggregators, not only for display but for uniqueness, this does indeed
present a problem and they're likely to simply chuck the items out.  While
of course databases could be trained to index on description too, this is a
huge key to maintain and an awful waste of resources.

While I know what Dave was going for here, upward != backward.

Rael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Krus [mailto:mkrus@newsisfree.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:47 PM
> To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: [radio-userland] First 24 hours completed
>
>
> Julian Bond wrote:
>
> > Some of the entries also underscore the divergence in the RSS community
> > from the 0.9x end. Take a look at this for instance:
> > http://www.ourfavoritesongs.com/users/dave@userland.com/rss/rss.xml
> > Here we have an 0.92 feed where the items have no <title> and no <link>.
> > This is of course valid 0.92 as both fields became optional in this
> > version.
> >
> > Many aggregators written to 0.90/1 would have problems displaying this
> > at all, at all.
> maybe aggregators are wrong ;-)
>
>
>
> But it leads to twisted results: many RSS .92 feeds have a description
> field containing
>      <A href="somelink">sometitle</a> somedescription
>
> What's the justification for not using RSS .91 for those feeds ????
> (besides the fact that Radio Userland cannot build them ;-) )
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>