Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: RSS Issues: Comments requested

Author:Bryant Durrell
Posted:11/10/1999; 12:35:28 PM
Topic:RSS Issues: Comments requested
Msg #:12951 (In response to 12945)
Prev/Next:12950 / 12952

In the real-world, people are extending RSS for their own purposes. Our RSS compiler already ignores items it doesn't know about.

I'm not at all surprised. :) I suspect that most code does the right thing.

My experience in the real world is that it's useful to have a well-defined path for user expansion that is guaranteed not to conflict with any future protocol expansion, which is why I suggested the x- convention.

The specific problem one wants to avoid is user A extending the spec for his personal use, and the official spec subsequently defining the same element in a conflicting manner. This is probably a low probability event, but the effort required to avoid any risk is equally low and does not seem to complicate things unduly. If a chunk of the element namespace is totally reserved for users and programmers to do their own thing, there's never any risk of clashing with the 'official' specifications.

Merely a suggestion. I do not mean to demand, edit, or otherwise express myself rudely; I am observing a technique that has proven useful in the past in the hopes that it might prove useful here. If it isn't useful, no skin off my back.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:53:28 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.