Comments on: Is RSS 2.0 too ambiguous? http://agylen.com/2005/09/19/is-rss-20-too-ambiguous/ Ugo Cei's Weblog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:39:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: scott http://agylen.com/2005/09/19/is-rss-20-too-ambiguous/#comment-289 scott Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:48:36 +0000 http://agylen.com/2005/09/19/is-rss-20-too-ambiguous/#comment-289 RSS 2.0 was designed to be human readable and very little thought went into how this technology could be used beyond its intended application, blogging. If you want to support a real standard that is not owned by a bitter, ego-driven blogger then choose the Atom syndication and publishing formats. You can simply export to RSS 2.0 until it has been completely obsoleted. http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php RSS 2.0 was designed to be human readable and very little thought went into how this technology could be used beyond its intended application, blogging. If you want to support a real standard that is not owned by a bitter, ego-driven blogger then choose the Atom syndication and publishing formats. You can simply export to RSS 2.0 until it has been completely obsoleted.

http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php

]]> By: Ellis Pritchard http://agylen.com/2005/09/19/is-rss-20-too-ambiguous/#comment-288 Ellis Pritchard Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:01:47 +0000 http://agylen.com/2005/09/19/is-rss-20-too-ambiguous/#comment-288 My question is, why is Dave storing the content on the file-system using the Channel Title field, which is hardly going to be unique, rather than the feed URL, which is? Seems like Dave's aggregator is broken, not RSS 2.0 ... My question is, why is Dave storing the content on the file-system using the Channel Title field, which is hardly going to be unique, rather than the feed URL, which is? Seems like Dave’s aggregator is broken, not RSS 2.0 …

]]>