Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RSS Version 3 Specs Up for Review

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the we'll-be-supporting-atom-in-a-few-weeks dept.

Jonathan Avidan writes "The RSS 3 Homepage now offers its first publicly available specification, the RSS 3 Lite-type Specification First Draft, intended for review and commenting for revision. RSS 3 is a reworking of RSS 2.0, filling the gaps and removing unnecessary features and is fully backwards-compatible, rather than a new format."

13 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. While we're on the subject... by gowen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... plans are afoot for Microsoft to co-opt RSS and rename it "web feeds"[from El Reg, so take it with a pinch of snuff]. Now, that is a better name, but it wouldn't be the first time that some incompatible variations got added to an open standard during this process (*cough* Kerberos).

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:While we're on the subject... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ... plans are afoot for Microsoft to co-opt RSS and rename it "web feeds"

      That is more likely to be based on the IETF ATOM standard though than RSS 3.0. But it really does not matter which one Microsoft picks, just that they pick one and only one. Google made a good choice when they went with ATOM.

      RSS is a mess, it became a mess because people refused to go to a standards forum and the result was a whole slew of incompatible ad-hoc extensions. There should be one syndication format and that should be a standard maintained by W3C or IETF.

      Renaming RSS Web feeds makes a lot of sense, just as renaming the 802.11b WiFi made sense. RSS is underspecified and fragmented, just like 802.11b was. The point of WiFi was you knew stuff would work together. So renaming RSS Web Feeds makes a great deal of sense.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. Gzip RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why isn't gzip compression of RSS feeds part of the specification? I'd have thought it'd be a natural thing to include for a format designed for minimizing bandwidth usage.

  3. Is it an accident.... by hta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that this happens on the day after the IETF announces that it's approved the ATOM syndication format?

    Announcement reproduced below:

    The IESG has approved the following document:

    - 'The Atom Syndication Format' as a Proposed Standard

    This document is the product of the Atom Publishing Format and Protocol Working Group.

    The IESG contact persons are Scott Hollenbeck and Ted Hardie.

    A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ato mpub-format-11.txt

    Technical Summary:

    This document describes the Atom format for syndication. It is XML-based and is considered to be the successor to the earlier RSS formats. Its primary use is for web-based content, but is expected to be used for non-web content as well, such as personal news feeds.

    Working Group Summary:

    Some members of the working group remain unenthusiastic about some sections of the document, but the chairs strongly believe that there is rough (or better) consensus in support of the document as a whole.
    For some of the parts with the most contention, there cannot be more than very rough consensus due to basic differences in the way people would design parts of the format, particularly given that we have many models in existence with the different flavors of RSS. For some parts of the document, there is contention about whether or not a particular item should or should not be in the Atom core versus being an extension. For some parts, there is contention whether there should be MUST/SHOULD/MAY leeway for content creators in the presence or absence of an element, or the semantic content of an element; the
    group really pushed RFC 2119 around during the past few months.

    Protocol Quality

    Scott Hollenbeck and the XML Directorate have reviewed the specification for the IESG. Test implementations have confirmed basic protocol soundness.

  4. Sorry Jonathan, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RSS 2 was the one whose development "contradicts all other standards", not RSS 1.0 as you would claim.

    Between that and Dave Winer's sheer craziness (and the craziness of those like you who drank too much of Dave's cool-aid), the future lies in the open standard called Atom, not in RSS 2 or RSS 3.

    Heck, at this point even RSS 1.0 has a far better chance of success than RSS 2, with more and more people picking it as a base for extensible microformats after realizing that RSS 1.0 got a lot of things right years before most people even realized why they were needed.

  5. How about a "Next"/"Back" option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since a lot of search engines are starting to provide results in RSS, why not a "Next", "Back" option? It seems rather useless to be able to get only five results in my favorite aggregator, and I would love to be able to go "forward" within a certain result set. This might also work for sites that provide news stories as well, such as Slashdot, in terms of getting older articles from the past week or two.

  6. Awful, awful idea by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I get the feeling that this is a practical joke/troll by Jonathan Avidan - the person who is editing this new specification, the person who maintains the website linked to, and who submitted this article to Slashdot.

    Yeah, the RSS 2 specification could do with cleaning up and clarification. No, it's not feasible because of too many people doing stupid things like announcing new versions of RSS all on their own and fragmenting the community.

    From the FAQ:

    Who designs the RSS Version 3 standard?

    Jonathan Avidan managers this site and edits the specifications according to common requests and open debates held in the Message Board and via email.

    Follow the link. It's a new message board with no posts.

    There is zero community behind this "standard", it's just a spec some guy decided to write of his own accord. In contrast, a real community effort, Atom, has just reached 1.0 and is standardized by the IETF. Nobody should take this "RSS 3.0" seriously.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Awful, awful idea by hritcu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For what purpose is the RSS Version 3 standard necessary?

      The 0.9x class of standards is outdated and underdocumented. The 2.0 class is highly underdocumented, filled with unnecessary features though lacking others which could be useful. The RSS 3 standard is supposed to extensively document the standard, to expand where expansion is needed and to remove unnecessary features.

      Is any of you satisfied with the explanation that the world needs a new RSS standard because the other versions are not well documented? What on earth stops him (Jonathan Avidan) from documenting them properly?

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    2. Re:Awful, awful idea by CDarklock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I see nothing wrong with Jonathan making an honest effort to create a good standard, even if he is going it alone at the moment.

      Of course, his PHP mail() configuration is hosed. Yeah, I take it seriously when a guy writing RSS standards can't configure his server. Sure. Whatever. But it can happen to anyone, so I won't pass judgement on that alone.

      I read the standard, went to the forum, and pointed out some valid concerns about one of its sections.

      The response to those concerns will tell me just how seriously to take this RSS 3 thing. If Jonathan has any business writing a standard, he'll have some cogent thoughts about these concerns, and I'll be perfectly willing to join the community. If not... meh. RSS isn't exactly at the top of my "cool" list anyway.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
  7. Complete accident by jonathan_avidan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll swear in court if necessary (though if necessary, then we've gone too far, haven't we?) that I had no idea the IETF approved Atom until reading the comments here. It was published today because it got finished today, simple as that.

    --
    Yrs John XXX
    1. Re:Complete accident by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So basically, you'd swear, under penalty of perjury, that you were completely unaware of a development of major significance for your #1 competitor, that's been pending for months?

      If that's not true, then you are dishonest. If it is true, then you are out of touch with the communiity that you claim to serve. Either way, it's not good.

      And what's up with this?

      Once the requirements page is set, the creation of the standard, complying to the Requirements stated below, will start with producing the Initial Draft (or the "Community Draft") for private reviews purposes. After the necessary changes, the First Working Draft will be published after which the First Call for Comments will be made public.

      So the "community draft" is private? How can you call that a "community" anything?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  8. why? by polaar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the RSS 2 spec
    Roadmap

    RSS is by no means a perfect format, but it is very popular and widely supported. Having a settled spec is something RSS has needed for a long time. The purpose of this work is to help it become a unchanging thing, to foster growth in the market that is developing around it, and to clear the path for innovation in new syndication formats. Therefore, the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1. We anticipate possible 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions, etc. only for the purpose of clarifying the specification, not for adding new features to the format. Subsequent work should happen in modules, using namespaces, and in completely new syndication formats, with new names.

    This is one of the reasons the Atom people chose a new name. If it's just clarification of RSS 2, it shouldn't have been called RSS 3.0. If something else is needed: just use Atom already!
    The site says that Atom is "similar in purpose", so amounts to this: they're trying to do the same thing as Atom, but in a way that will make the current situation even more confusing (and that will probably drive Dave Winer crazy)
  9. Who Are You? by jeff_schiller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow you have put a lot of effort into this, but have you talked with anyone in the community? Why not participate in Atom discussions, why go off an implement yet another flavour of RSS. I call "practical joke" or lame attempt at getting "internet famous".

    --
    Something Witty Goes Here