Aaron Swartz has an interesting take on the RSS v0.94 vs. RSS v2.0 discussion. Avoid XML at all costs.
That just sounds like trouble to me. I personally think using XML is a good thing, it makes things easy.An item consists of a series of lines separated by "\n".
Maybe if he was being sensible and talking about using YAML...
YAML
ziggy on 2002-09-09T02:55:44
At first, it sounded like YAML would have been a good fit. But the YAML is 24 pages of spec-ese that's still being drafted.There's something beneficial of making a ~five page complete spec that includes the file structure, semantic behavior and parsing rules. It's also quite nice if you can write a parser in 1 line of Perl/Python for that format as well.
I agree with Aaron here. If YAML is a goal, then the way to reach that goal is to engineer a YAML-compatible format, not mandate that RSS 3.0 is a YAML document per se (like RSS 0.9x-2.0 is an XML document).
Re:YAML
gav on 2002-09-09T03:22:40
I wasn't trying to suggest dropping XML and moving to YAML. I don't really care what format RSS uses, as long as it is something sensible. Using a format that somebody has already worked out (like XML) is a good thing. How many esoteric formats are already out there? Do we need another? I don't want to split on "\n" and worry that it might be "\r" or "\r\n" depending on the platform.Whether RSS uses YAML or XML or something else, as long as there are tools out there that make it easy everything will work out. Using XML::RSS is easy. I don't have to write a parser and I shouldn't have to. The main advantage of XML as I see it is that adding fields in a later revision shouldn't break older clients.
Re:It's a gag.
barries on 2002-09-09T14:41:26
Matt, please stop trying to send us innocents to pr0n sites;): WarningThis group contains adult content.
We're sorry, you have reached an age-restricted area of Yahoo! Groups.
Return to the home page
