Say it loud, I’m funky and I’m proud

I was pretty sure my RSS was funky, but thanks to Ralph Brandi I don’t have to wait for the Grand Arbiter of Funk to get around to me: the Funkidator says I’m funky like James Brown. The Funkidator says that recently touted as unfunky (and not touted as invalid, with a date format that few if any can parse) Boing Boing is unfunky like Pat Boone.

What do you think? Should I be worried about my funkiness? Do I need to fix my feed, so I’ll be like Pat Boone? Or should I think about this year, and next year, rather than three years ago?


Comment by James #
2003-06-18 00:43:29

Apparently mine is funky too. Of course, I couldn’t just keep it to myself; I had to create a button to proclaim it to the world.

Comment by James #
2003-06-18 00:44:15

And thirty seconds after posting the comment I see you’ve beaten me to it. Arg.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 00:56:29

Mine are better not because I got them quicker (they’ve actually been there for a couple of days now), but because they came from someone who apparently thinks funky is bad, and should be fixed.

Comment by James #
2003-06-18 01:12:37

And yet I don’t know what it is about my RSS that’s funky so I can fix it. It’s odd that my RSS should be funky, though, considering that on the dance floor I am a tragically un-hip fellow.

Someone should petition Dave to add funky/non-funky checking to Userland’s RSS validator and document it properly. Then those of us who want to stay funky can define a ”funky” namespace . . .

Comment by Marcus #
2003-06-18 04:40:54

I dunno what the validator catches, but I’m beginning to gather that ”funkiness” means that a feed is using anything but the minimum default elements.

What was the point in coming up with this more extensible version of UserLand’s RSS – presumably conceded to pull some interest from RDF RSS – if the owner of the spec is going to criticise people for taking advantage of extensions?

Perhaps I’m just having a surly week, but isn’t the important thing the fact that you can get almost any valid RSS feed working in all the main aggregators? What does the format or structure of the data matter?

Comment by Scott Hanson #
2003-06-18 01:27:09

Oooh! Me be funky too!

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 04:53:50

Hey Phil you crossed over into ad hominem territory. Saying a feed is funky is (to some for sure) a fun thing. Saying someone is ”the Grand Arbiter of Funk” is personal. That’s kind of nasty, and could we please avoid that kind of nast. Thanks. Imho, of course, ymmv. Have a nice day.

Comment by Marcus #
2003-06-18 05:10:39

Well, if you don’t want it… can I be the ”Grand Arbiter of Funk” then? I quite like that title.

Unfortunately – and presumably – my own feed is hardly funky at all. :(

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 12:37:59

I like a little humor. Cool. You can be the GAOF for an hour. Then I want the title back.

So where is this funk-free-feed of yours. I want to behold it.

Comment by Marcus #
2003-06-18 13:32:33

BEHOLD, my relatively funk-free feed!

Seeing as I claim the following hour to be my time as GAOF here’s what I see as my feed’s existing, intentional and intransigent funkiness:

  1. Using a .rss file extension, while passing my feed from the server as mime-type application/xml+rss
  2. Using automated cut-off excerpts as descriptions.

Is that close for a first go?

Nonetheless, aggregators don’t seem to have too much trouble reading it – as with most of the funkiest of feeds – hence my general apathy towards the various format(s) themselves.

Then again, as you may or may not have gathered (or remembered), I’m not one for caring much about things like consistency across formats / versions or non-techies needing to understand XML. At least, no more than I think they should be able to easily understand the structure of, for example, the databases that help run the applications they use.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 13:42:04

Dunno, I thought your <guid> that is the permalink but isn’t isPermaLink was the funkiest part.

Comment by Marcus #
2003-06-18 13:44:01

Ah, but lookee:

isPermaLink is optional, its default value is true.

That’s what I was working off. Using the default surely can’t be funky, right? :)

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 14:18:59

That is one fucking nice feed!

And you’re right, isPermaLink is optional and defaults to true. So your guids will enable a guid-aware aggregator to do right by the user.

Looking marvelous.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 15:17:13

Oh, that’s right, I always parse that backward, as a guid’s a guid unless it isPermalink, rather than a guid’s a permalink unless isPermalink isn’t.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 18:35:41

See progress comes in small steps. Phil, who is normally Mr Encyclopedia on all things RSS hasn’t had enough exposure to the spec to know the most basic thing about it. If all the talk of funk has the effect of getting a few more ”experts” to actually read the damned spec, how great would that be.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 19:31:03

Why, yes, I guess you could interpret it that way, couldn’t you?

Comment by Marcus #
2003-06-19 00:21:05

I can understand why, though. If the default value is true, it’s counterintuitive that the attribute you can also add is, by name and logic alone, default to true as well.

Comment by kellan #
2003-06-18 07:38:45


Seems less nasty then say, calling someone chicken-shit.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 12:40:16

Neener neener!!

BTW I didn’t say Phil was chicken-shit.

So there.

Comment by Anonymous #
2003-06-18 13:39:35

Not Phil, but your competitors by extension:


”We should be at a point, as an industry, where we’re ready to develop real interchange between products, so that users have choice. Vendors with small installed bases usually want this, and ones with larger bases, usually don’t. But not enabling interop is a chicken-shit way to compete. It’s a sure sign of a large installed base but an inadequate development team or codebase.”

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 14:21:38

Yes Mr or Ms Anonymous, I think it is chicken shit to compete by being incompatible. My opinion. And it is chicken shit to post a message without saying who you are.

They’re lucky I’m not as nasty as they are or I’d ship an incompatible Trackback just to prove the point, or create a Blogger API of my own with parameters in a different order.

Boy I bet they’d like *that*!

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 15:26:10

Or an API which, while quite similar, does more while omitting something that they think should be required?

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 18:34:18

Yeah, but it has a different name. That’s the big diff. BTW, check this out. That’s my basic feeling about this discussion. Big hats no cattle? Lots of air not much manure.

Comment by kellan #
2003-06-18 16:03:02

Just for the record I agree that posting anonymously damages a conversation space like this one.

However Anonymous did properly find the citation I was referring to.

Comment by Anonymous #
2003-06-18 18:55:20

BoingBoing Blogger’s feed is deemed ”not funky”, however it does NOT conform to the RSS specification. It does, however, pass the Userland RSS validator.

MovableType’s blankBlog feed is deemed ”funky”, however it DOES conform to the RS specification and ALSO happens to pass the Userland RSS validator.

Both work just fine with the Radio Userland Aggregator.

In exactly what way are funky feeds incompatible?

Comment by Sam Ruby #
2003-06-18 18:57:11

Oops, forgot to ”sign” the above.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 08:30:25

How can we determine if something is funky or not? We wait for you to say ”funky” or ”unfunky” enough times that we can guess at what the essential elements of funky are. That makes you the sole arbiter of funkiness until we have a large enough sample size. There are a number of ad hominems that I could have included, but chose not to. This one is not an ad hominem, it is an essential part of the current situation: the one person who should know more about RSS than anyone else currently talking about it says that some feeds are not quite right despite being valid, but refuses to say how, or what should be changed, other than the possibility of an after-the-fact ”warmer” or ”colder”. Believe me, I wanted to go all out ad hominem, because you are seriously pissing me off now that you are scaring users, but I chose not to.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 09:14:38

Phil, all in due time.

This linear engineers-rule-all approach is the damned problem.

Sure they’re valid, according to the grand arbiters, Ruby and Pilgrim.

There’s a lot of judgement in what they’re doing. Why aren’t you on their case Phil.

Anyway, RSS should not belong to the gearheads. It should not be confusing to ordinary people. This is what I believe in.

Comment by Roger Benningfield #
2003-06-18 09:58:35

Dave: ”Anyway, RSS should not belong to the gearheads. It should not be confusing to ordinary people.”

I agree. But <dc:creator> and <dc:date> are not going to confuse anyone who can grok author and pubDate. And after all, you’ve made the use of <dc:creator> a necessity for non-gearheads, since few of them are going to be willing to expose their email addresses via <author>.

Comment by Mark #
2003-06-18 10:39:42

Re: ”Sure they’re valid, according to the grand arbiters, Ruby and Pilgrim.”

No, Dave, they are valid according to your own RSS 2.0 specification, which explicitly states that ”A RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if those elements are defined in a namespace.”

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 11:57:54

So there’s no judgement in your validator? I’ve noted comments on Ruby’s site where he talks about policies he’s implementing that *seem* to be judgement calls. If I made a mistake, please accept my apology.

Comment by Bryant #
2003-06-19 06:44:42

See, now I’m confused.

Phil points out RSS feeds that are ”funky” despite being valid as per the spec.

Dave says ”sure they’re valid according to Sam Ruby and Mark Pilgrim.”

Mark points out that they’re valid according to the spec.

Dave says ”But you guys make value judgements.”

Well, it’s true. Mark and Sam do make value judgements. But that question is completely orthagonal to the issue of whether or not a feed with namespaces validates according to the spec. You don’t need to look at the value judgements to make that call.

Here is a very simple statement of fact:

”The MT 2.6 default RSS 2.0 feed follows the spec.”

Is that untrue? If so, why?

Comment by Roger Benningfield #
2003-06-18 09:50:18

Dave: ”That’s kind of nasty…”

Stating a fact is not nasty. Engaging in an anti-competitive FUD campaign, on the other hand, comes pretty close.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 18:38:04

Roger that Roger, I am against competition by being incompatible, and you should be too, that is if you got any guts.

Comment by Roger Benningfield #
2003-06-19 04:24:39

Dave: ”I am against competition by being incompatible…”

So funky == incompatible? With what, exactly? Not the spec, and not the aggregators. Incompatible with the vision, perhaps?

Dave: ”…that is if you got any guts.”

I’m generally disappointed in my small intestine… it’s a tangled mess. But the large one rocks.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 05:07:33

I had to look much harder to find this comment.

This is valuable data. And no wince-producing ad hominems to deal with. Maybe now it’s time to start working together for real, instead of just accepting things as they are. If you add up all the times I’ve pointed to RSS feeds without saying anything other than ”excellent” and ”good work” and compare it with the amount of bullshit those people get pelted with from RDF advocates, you’ll see that the politics has already taken its toll here, over a long period of time. Now I’m just coming back at them with their own tool, religion.

Some people say it’s time for a new format. No it’s not. A new format just adds more confusion. It’s time to throw out confusion, say enough is enough, there is a spec, it was written before any of you had anything to do with this (except for two or three other people who aren’t posting anymore) and you just have to learn to accept that. It’s hard for some people to accept that something was designed before they arrived. But that’s too bad. I don’t have any more sympathy for it. Waste of time.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 08:47:56

Yeah, I’m wandering out into ”before I was around” territory, but digging through all the slander of 2000 for what people were really saying, wasn’t ”RSS may use the elements that I say it may use, and no others” really the biggest impetus for RSS 1.0? Maybe I’ve misread the parts of the record that are public and still exist, but I got the impression that the RDF was just a side-effect, something that seemed like a good idea at the time, while the opportunity to innovate in namespaces was the real driver.

You’ve gotten an awful lot of support for RSS 2.0 thanks to the addition of namespaces. Do you really want to throw that away, and drive away the people who’ve converted, because some people choose not to use optional RSS 2.0 elements, and choose to use elements from other namespaces? My feeling from watching the RSS-DEV group since last summer is that RSS 1.0 is withering away, thanks to their complete inability to get anything done and the lack of any killer app. But if you start a religious war, that will inevitably make both sides stronger, or at least more polarized: attacking the religion of someone who is nearly agnostic is far more likely to strenghthen their existing belief than convert them.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 09:12:10

Phil, I was saying we have to work together, whether or not we use namespaces. So let’s figure out how to work together. What a disappointment that you of all people are taking this approach. You can read as well as anyone. Tired of hashing and rehashing. You got it wrong, buddy. Way way fucking wrong.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 09:37:10

At least we’re still buddies. I do value your friendship, even when I very strongly disagree with what you do.

Yes, I can read. I can read carefully, and voraciously. I’ve done my best to read everything public in the whole funky topic, from the start in the API discussion. And I don’t like to, but when I have to, I can at least try to read between the lines. Having done all that, probably the most agnostic person with an interest in RSS is saying that what you are doing is wrong, and harmful. Have you even thought about that, or are you so sure that you are right that nothing will sway you?

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 09:40:58

If you’ve read the record, how did you come up with this: ”RSS may use the elements that I say it may use, and no others.”

So you think I’m wrong. Can you explain why without resorting to ad hominems? Can you make it a respectful difference between intelligent people?

Have you considered the possibility that YOU’RE wrong?

Back off a step or two Phil. I think I’m right. Maybe you’d better go check some of your assumptions.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 10:21:16

I’m constantly aware of the possibility that I’m wrong. That’s the biggest reason I post so rarely: after a few times of casually mentioning that something seemed interesting, only to have people install it, change to it, whatever, based on my endorsement, when I had just glanced at it and been intrigued, I became a lot more careful. I don’t always like that, but I really don’t like being the cause of people doing something that turns out not to be a good idea.

Can I carefully and precisely explain why I think you’re wrong? Of course not. You’re a very good debator, and in this case you are taking the very effective tack of never being pinned down by saying something precise. If you said ”I think MT should point autodiscovery to the RSS 2.0 feed” I could explain that the main template is intended to be backward-compatible, you should be able to paste in a new copy without breaking things, and since the old copy pointed to a file named index.rdf, changing that in the default template would end up breaking links for people who are only publishing a feed with that name, and not also publishing index.xml. If you said that everyone should put their full posts entity encoded in description, I could talk about the places that are actually using my plain-text description by choice where it’s more useful to them than the full item. But as it is, all I can say is that what you’re doing feels wrong, that I don’t think it will have a good effect. Not being able to say anything more than that left me feeling powerless, and unable to contribute, to the point where I really wanted to just completely give up on the whole RSS field, until the constant ”funky” ”funky” ”funky” and the very real worry that I was starting to see in users as opposed to developers finally drove me to say something.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 12:07:25

I am so not interested in debating.

Maybe you should give up on the ”whole RSS field.” Maybe you want something from RSS that it can’t give you. Now you say it’s just a feeling that I’m wrong. What do you expect me to do about that Phil. There are a million people. There are also quite a few people who feel what I’m doing is right, including me.

I have my own experience to guide me, and my own hopes. You may not know anything about them. I tend to be pretty open about who I am and what drives me, but I’ve held back what I think about all the weird stuff people do with RSS that may have to be supported by any program that wants to read RSS. Now I’m not holding back.

I tell people about myself, but they don’t bother to read. The thing you quoted me on is 180 degrees opposite my values. If you, a self-declared reader, got that wrong, what hope is there to communicate with most of the rest who just skim and don’t bother asking questions or really want to reinvent stuff just for the fun of it. How the hell can you get anywhere if you stop when anyone says stop. How many times do you argue with people who call you names.

Anyway, I’ve asked you directly before, months ago what you want from RSS and blogs, and as far as I know you haven’t answered. Until you do that, I have no idea how to evaluate your feeling that I am wrong.

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-18 14:55:18

”How the hell can you get anywhere if you stop when anyone says stop”

But aren’t you saying ”Stop extending RSS 2.0 with namespaced elements, because it’s funky”?

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 18:38:44

Show me where I said that and I’ll eat my hat.

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-18 18:52:02

Dave, you’ve been delibrately vague, but you certainly implied it.

However, in the interest of clarity I’ll break this down to two simpler questions.

Did you not imply that extending RSS 2.0 with any namespaced elements was ’funky’?

And are you not trying to put pressure on people to provide ’unfunky’ feeds only?

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-19 21:54:25

Well, it’s been over twenty-four hours, so I guess I got the last word in.

I would rather have gotten an answer, but I suppose that was to much to hope for.

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-07-09 14:32:04

Well, in yet another comment thread, I finally got Dave to answer what he meant by ’three bits of funk’:

Michael you sure ask a tough question. I guess at that time I thought blogchannel wasn’t doing much for the feed. I had asked if anyone was using it, and heard back from exactly no one, so I said FUNK! and nuked it. You’re right, I should have checked with my lawyer first to see if you could have sued me for that, maybe you’ll let me off the hook just this once. Technically speaking it wasn’t funk, but I was feeling a little funky when I wrote that! Get down. Dig it.

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-23 16:58:41

Ok, I’ve separated a bit more wheat from the chaff:

Dave says In the following comments: ”where you need a namespace, go ahead and create one. But if you can do it without creating one, that’s better. One way to do something is better than two.”

In context, it seems that although all use of namespaces is ’funky’, only unnecessary use of namespaced elements (defined as those which duplicate existing optional elements) is actually a Bad Thing.

This is a *slightly* less unreasonable position that what I had extrapolated, but Dave really only has himself to blame for implying (without actually saying) in the first place that ’funky’ = ’Bad’, and then refusing to explain further when people asked for clarification.

All in all, this still looks like a FUD campaign on Dave’s part.

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-18 12:35:55

Dave, I’ll explain the outline of my own thought process (which comes to the same conclusion as Phil) here:

Let’s start with the post that kicked things off:

”I read a piece yesterday about SixApart and their standards compliance. Interesting, but they do RSS in a funky way. I guess they are picky about which standards they support and how. They respect the W3C, but they don’t respect RSS.”

Well, at this point I don’t know what constitutes ’funky’, but it’s apparently a Bad Thing.

Next comes the supposed explanation.

A lot of stuff here, it’s clear that RDF (and therefore RSS 1.0) is ’funky’, but it seems as though some RSS 2.0 may be ’funky’ too, for some (still unspecified) reason, except that it’s somehow different from what Userland tools produce by default. I have a feeling that it might be the use of namespaced elements instead of existing optional RSS 2.0 elements, but I’m not sure.

Various other examples of ’not funky’ feeds ensue, none of them particularly illuminating. Various public requests for Dave to say exactly what ’funky’ means in this context get deflected or ignored.

Finally, this post.

In particular, the ’three bits of funk’ sentence provided the necessary clue, as the only thing in the Scripting News feed that it could be matched to was the namespace declaration plus the two namespaced elements.

Most importantly, contrary to my previous speculation, these elements don’t replace existing optional RSS 2.0 elements, but add new functionality that isn’t available in any other way.

So. It’s now (finally) clear that using *any* namespaced elements is ’funky’. Therefore Bad. And so, to be ’unfunky’ (and therefore Good) your feed should only use elements defined in the RSS 2.0 specification, in spite of the specification allowing the use of namespaced elements.

This, to me, pretty much says ”RSS may use the elements that I say it may use, and no others” as Phil put it, at least if you want to be a Good Person. All in all, I think the charge of FUD is more than justified Dave.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 15:31:45

Michael speaks for me.

(And may very well know which RAH book that comes from, too.)

Comment by Michael Bernstein #
2003-06-18 17:13:19

”Deety paused to sigh; I said quietly, ’She speaks for me.’” — Robert A. Heinlein, Number of the Beast

How many points do I get?

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 21:47:57

All of them.

Thank you so much for coming by.

Comment by Ralph Brandi #
2003-06-18 16:29:53

That’s a pretty good explanation of the reverse engineering process I went through when trying to decipher what made a feed ”funky”. Thanks, Michael.

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 05:09:46

BTW, it’s a good religion.

I’ve talked with people who grok HTML who stay away from RSS because they think it’s too complicated.

My religion, which I’ve written extensively about, is that smart people who know HTML should be able to understand this stuff.

All the choices and religious arguments make them run away, and that’s the bug I hope to fix. I want to nuke the mystery, so I called it funk, and decided to highlight feeds and people who don’t indulge in it. I was surprised to see how much there is.

Comment by Sam Ruby #
2003-06-18 06:05:36

I’ve had the opposite experience. People are shying away from RSS because there are a number of areas where the spec is unclear (excerpts explicitly say that HTML is OK, but what about titles? Can relative URLs be used in links?), they can’t get straight answers to straight questions (example: what DOES funk mean?), and there isn’t one place where they can find out about such things as trackback:ping, slash:comment, the wfw namespace, etc.

Comment by Phil Wilson #
2003-06-18 08:13:32

ooh ooh! +1!

Comment by Dave Winer #
2003-06-18 14:23:09

Anyone else think it’s mighty difficult to find the new stuff with this newfangled threading thing that Phil uses?

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 15:30:40

I do. The idiot thinks it’s so great, but it’s harder than hell to be sure you’ve rebutted everything… hey! And again, hey!

Actually, I just use the comment RSS feed, though it’s not nearly as good a solution as wfw:commentRSS will be. I wonder if anyone will support a threading extension for comment RSS? That’s what would suit me best: show me only new, then stick them back in threaded context.

Comment by kellan #
2003-06-18 16:15:09

My suggestion the other day somewhere other in one of Sam’s threads about using the annotation module would allow a simple child->parent threading. Though I think that got lost in my suggestion to cut the original story from the comment feed.

Or maybe you’re talking about client side support.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-06-18 21:59:10

Both: I want client support built on a feed element.

Do you think we can actually use mod_annotation? I agree, there’s no question from the spec that in a weblog, <annotate:reference> should be used in a comment <item> to point to the parent comment or entry <item>. However, my feeling is that mod_annotation is now unusable, since apparently nobody was watching and fact-checking when Ben claimed that it should point from an entry to its comments URL. I don’t know how many people copied and pasted out of that article, but when I noticed it (months later), I just scratched annotation off my mental list of modules that could ever be used for anything.

Comment by kellan #
2003-06-19 06:53:17

What a crummy thing for Ben to do, we should stake him out over an anthill! I knew I should have downloaded one of those pre-release version of that book that was floating around.

My thoughts are if the aggregators get it right, feeds will follow.

Comment by Bryant #
2003-06-19 06:48:14

And one new comment. This is a personal opinion; it is not meant as a statement of fact.

I think that the default MT RSS 2.0 feed would be better if it included <pubDate> alongside <dc:date>. I believe that providing <dc:date> is useful, since it’s easier to parse. However, I don’t see any reason why one couldn’t provide both. If you do that, the RSS 2.0 feed is completely accessible to aggregators which expect .9x RSS feeds.

Another opinion:

I think that there are infinitely better ways of asking the Trotts to make this change than calling them out as wrong on a prominent weblog. Email comes to mind. Phrasing it as a ”hm, what if they did this?” post also comes to mind.

Comment by Roger Benningfield #
2003-06-19 10:29:45

Bryant: ”Phrasing it as a ’hm, what if they did this?’ post also comes to mind.”

What madness is this?! If the vile weed of clear and constructive criticism were to grow unchecked, why, imagine the consequences! The humanity! Dear god, the humanity!

Comment by Sam Ruby #
2003-06-19 11:34:30

What should the precidence be between dc:date and pubDate?

Do we know of *any* tools which consume pubDate and don’t consume dc:date?

The simple truth of the matter is, most aggregators support both RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0. And RSS 1.0 made dc:date popular long before pubDate was invented. So, if anything, more tools are likely to support the prior art which many (like myself) feel is easier to parse, sort, and more friendly to an international audience.

Comment by Bryant #
2003-06-19 11:50:03

If you held me down and forced me to choose one, I’d say dc:date for all the reasons you cite. I just don’t think we have to choose for RSS 2.0.

Personally, I’m getting about 20 times more hits on my 1.0 feed than I am on my .9x feed, and most of the .9x feed hits are Google, so I don’t think pubDate is in any way necessary. But, hey, go the extra half a step to support anyone lagging — why not?

Trackback by Sam Ruby #
2003-06-18 04:17:39

Swinging both ways

I’ve got one of each. Unfunky. Funky.

Trackback by Third Superpower #
2003-06-18 06:48:11

If you choose not to decide…

I have decided that my original decision not to offer a feed in the RDF format was hasty. There are…

Trackback by Rodent Regatta #
2003-06-18 07:36:41

Obscuring the Issues with ”Funk”

Here are the crowning words in the RSS funk debate. Thanks, Phil, for making it so clear! I’m not sure…

Trackback by Wax Wolf Musings #
2003-06-20 00:27:50

Funky! Not funky!

There are bizzaro memes on the non-LiveJournal side of things too, kids. Witness There Is No Cat which can tell you whether your RSS feed is funky

My standard RSS feed is pretty funky, there. But the RSS 2.0 feed I have to serve to the blagg/livejourna

Trackback by ALLABOUTGEORGE's a2g #
2003-06-21 05:13:45

Nine and a half liters of filtered water per workweek.

My RSS feed is funky, sez There Is No Cat’s Funkidator (via Phil Ringnalda) Nick Drake tribute at S.F.’s Make Out Room, 6/23 (via mousemusings 24-hour Korean restaurant? Not enough hours or tastebuds in the day…

Trackback by Raw Blog #
2003-06-23 09:51:21

dc:date funky – yeah!

I just reread the notes at Sam Ruby’s and Don Park’s and I think Phunky Phil spotted it (at Sam’s)…

Trackback by Observations #
2003-06-23 12:35:25

Vendor neutral weblogging

Following on the heels of the funky RSS kerfuffle, a fresh start in weblog interoperability and syndication technology could be the beginning of something big….

Trackback by dive into mark #
2003-06-25 23:08:40

Will the real RSS validator please stand up?

Thank you, Brad. Thank you for proving exactly why we need a new vendor-neutral format. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Trackback by l.m.orchard #
2003-06-26 11:11:20

Like I was saying about RSS…

So yeah, like I was saying, I’ve kept my head out of the RSS frey lately. This past post about GUIDs and their properties of rocking in RSS hadn’t had much thought behind it, other than that the idea of having *something* well defined and uncontesta

2003-07-02 21:25:52

The Not RSS thing

There’s a new API spec being proposed, so you’d think I’d be getting involved. But I don’t really have the energy.

Comment by James Holderness #
2006-01-17 04:45:52

FYI, the comment above is undoubtedly spam. Those words were lifted from a comment of mine on Danny Ayers’ blog.

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2006-01-17 07:33:40

The comment formerly above, of course.

Interesting: all four of this morning’s spam haul looked like the classic ”lift part of a sentence from earlier in the comments” but since one of them was the only comment on the post, they were probably all lifted from elsewhere, no doubt thanks to the magic of comment feeds.

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <del datetime="" cite=""> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <i> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <kbd> <li> <ol> <p> <pre> <q cite=""> <samp> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul> in your comment.