Slashdot Mirror
Apple Breaks RSS with Photocasting
Barry Norton writes "VNUNet reports that the Photocasting feature in Apple's iPhoto application violates core XML and RSS standards. Perhaps the worst part is that, in many cases, this isn't even a case of 'embrace and extend', but just plain doing it wrong. Dave Winer, essentially the creator of RSS, says, 'It's pretty bad. There are lots of errors, the date formats are wrong, there are elements that are not in RSS that aren't in a namespace.'"
This is stupid. And false. To quote TFU:
and
Apple fucked up the implementation of photocasting. Technically they didn't break it, but didn't use it in a way some feed readers expected. This seems to be the result of incompetence, not an attempt to create their own proprietary RSS version.
This looks like a case of a 1.0 version. Common wisdom is that commercial software sucks before 2.0. iPhoto 1.0 was dog slow when you had more than a coupe of hundreds of pictures in your library. Aperture 1.0 messed up some image correction parameters. All this was fixed in the following releases. Open Source software avoids this by staying below 1.0 for a decade. Since Steve Jobs made a big point about photocasting being compatible with existing readers during the MacExpo keynote and there being no sign of intended "embrace and extend", we can assume that this will fixed with the next iPhoto update.
Nothing to be seen here besides another sensational Apple bashing report. Please move along.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
The source code for FeedValidator is freely available on SourceForge
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
RSS is XML. As such, processors need to conform to the XML specifications. iPhoto doesn't do this, it gets various things wrong, such as not requiring documents to be well-formed, and ballsing up namespaces.
While it's true that RSS allows you to introduce your own element types via namespaces, that doesn't give you leeway to do whatever the hell you want and call it 'RSS'.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I happen to have RSS on the brain at the moment, since I just this week implemented RSS 2.0 for my personal webpage. The comments on the linked articles mostly go like this:
c asting-Hyperbole/
- It works for me!
- It doesn't matter that it works for you; it violates standards!
- But there are no standards for RSS!
- Are too!
and so on.
For a counterpoint, check out this blog entry:
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/01/18/Photo
The whole flap is quite a learning experience if you're interested in RSS.
Free, legal music for iTunes users.
damn, i used my brain cells with 2.2 pounds ~ 1.0 Kg,
so that made it 800 lbs / 2.2 or kinda 400 / 1.1,
1 over 11 is 9.090909..., so its 360+3.6+.36, so oops
I erred in my head, I should have had 363.(63)* repeating, which would have been DAMN closer. Damn the power of brainware. Who taught this AI system??? But hey, it was just a side-bar in a comment, and close enough is close enough for a commentary. It's not like I was scheduling a fly-by for Saturn's moons or anything.
Or perhaps Apple's diet made it a little leaner, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. I was commenting on how it STILL is not quite a complete 800 lb gorilla. Yeah, that's what I meant!
Let's all call it "Apple Simple Syndication (ASS)" and see what happens.
rewriting history since 2109
Please don't speak for anybody but yourself. Having to handle whatever garbage is thrown its way is one of the reasons why alternative browsers have such a difficult time rendering all websites "properly".
It's a big problem, it works not unlike an arms war - as soon as the most popular browser understands a particular type of garbage, the others have to race to catch up. It's completely unnecessary work. So the authors of the XML specification required all XML parsers to immediately stop parsing upon encountering garbage, to ensure that another "arms race" doesn't happen in future.
Postel's Law only works when both sides of the equation are balanced. The producers on the web have made it perfectly clear time and time again that they are not willing to take care with what they produce. So attempting to be liberal in what is accepted is a losing strategy, because you just have to work more and more just to stay in the same place.
RSS is a format based on XML. As such, no, RSS readers should not work in the same way as browser tag soup parsers, otherwise we'll have exactly the same situation we have with HTML all over again.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Nonsense. RSS doesn't have to be governed by a standards body for Apple's actions to be "wrong." The spec can be found at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss quite easily. And there's nothing stopping Apple from visiting http://feedvalidator.org/ to make sure their code works. They clearly didn't bother to do that.
This isn't Apple bashing either. Many of the people who are most upset about this, myself included, are diehard Apple users.
Apple screwed up photocasting, pure and simple. And they screwed up their podcasting spec too by releasing poorly designed specs (and I'm being generous here by calling their first attempt a "spec") and then changing things later. And they've made processing of some of their elements amazingly difficult. For instance, the itunes:keywords element can either be delimitted by commas or spaces. There's nothing in the xml itself to indicate for sure which you're dealing with, you just have to guess. Check if there's a comma present, if so, split by commas, otherwise, split by spaces. But what happens if they meant to use the single keyword "bad apple" instead of "bad", "apple"? There's no way to know for sure. The whole point of a spec is to avoid this kind of rediculous imprecision.
So yeah, Apple doesn't seem to have the first clue about generating valid RSS or XML any of that stuff. And all they had to do was ask. Secrecy is not always your best friend.