Tristan Louis wrote:
When I first read your (Tristan's) comments, I thought - you can't do that, RSS is RSS and HTML is HTML. But as I was thinking about the other people at weav http://www.weav.ca who I presented to about RSS last week -- many are script-challenged and edit content in HTML editing tools, and I promised to find a way (by using or modifying existing scraping tools) to help them create a channel. And it hit me -- Tristan's wanting the aggregator to read HTML was the right approach, and embedding XML content in HTML while fitting in with W3 recommendatoins has precedence with RDDL.Quoting Doug Ransom <doug.ransom@alumni.uvic.ca>: <SNIP>That was the original attempt that I had when I first came up with a way to markup XHTML and RSS in the same document. After all, if you think about it, once you have defined a channel, an RSS item is nothing more than a link, a title and a description. If we could find a way to embed those into an XHTML document (and embed the channel header in the head of an XHTML document), we could then have a file that works on both browsers and aggregators.2. My goal is to drasticallly reduce the barrier to syndication. Its easy to add a couple of tags into an HTML document. It much harder to get programming resources to create RSS for an HTML developer,and to manage two different files.
The only difference in our thinking is that aggregators need to be trained to read hypertext syndicate (HTS), which will require only subtly different processing from the current processing of RSS 2.0. ? RSS documents require the channel to be the first element encountered (in RSS 1, its a little different because of the RDF data model,but analagous), whereas in HTS the channel must occur somewhere within the document.
-- Doug Ransom Hate spam & pop ups? Try Mozilla for web/ëmail. Its free.