Comments on: RSS-Data

By: Greg Reinacker

Greg Reinacker — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:36:49 +0000

Roger, take a look at Item #3 in this post from Les. I'd sure rather write the xpath for the namespaced version, rather than the rss-data version...

By: Greg Reinacker's Weblog - RSS-Data

Greg Reinacker's Weblog - RSS-Data — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:02:37 +0000

Greg Reinacker's Weblog - RSS-Data I'm with Greg. Why reinvent the wheel. My full comments are contained in my original post, here....[more]

By: Allie Rogers, Jr.

Allie Rogers, Jr. — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:00:29 +0000

I agree that RSS 2.0 already has the extensibility required to achieve the goals of RSS-Data as I've already noted (http://allierogers.typepad.com/01/2003/10/radioweblogscom.html).

In fact, our experience, here, as documented Greg's own Triple Point case study (http://www.newsgator.com/news/archive.aspx?post=17), proves it.

By: Roger Benningfield

Roger Benningfield — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:32:41 +0000

Greg: RSS-Data is unquestionably harder got a human to read than a namespaced extension. But parsing it is incredibly simple, given the wealth of pre-existing libraries.

By: harder to read, and more difficult to parse

harder to read, and more difficult to parse — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 02:05:18 +0000

http://www.rassoc.com/gregr/weblog/archive.aspx?post=669…more]

By: Greg Reinacker

Greg Reinacker — Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:43:57 +0000

The only thing that comes to mind was something about some nasty HTML that we were generating for a while…but I eventually saw the light. ;-)

I’ve replied privately on post you point to.

By: Dare Obasanjo

Dare Obasanjo — Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:16:06 +0000

So what haven’t we seen eye to eye on?

PS: What do you think of the ideas at http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/messageboard/Thread.aspx?id=151520