A cautious welcome

I’m still not quite sure whether or not I welcome our new RSS overlords, but since it’s easy enough to make them think I do by adding another template to produce xhtml.rss, an RSS feed with an xhtml:body, I’m in. If you don’t know why you would want to switch to it, you probably don’t.

I do wish I had a better solution to HTML entities than just learning or looking up a four digit number, though.


Comment by Sam Ruby #
2003-04-16 14:41:33

To tell you the truth, I’m not too thrilled by this whole ’overlord’ think that Mark started. If defining a new namespace in exactly the manner that RSS 2.0 says it should be done, then I guess I’m guilty. Actually, I’m not even so sure, as I didn’t define a new namespace, I merely reused an existing one.

Can it be Matt Croyden’s turn to be the rss overlord tomorrow?

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-04-16 15:29:55

Which, when you aren’t the target, is one of the most interesting parts of the phrase’s memetic power: it’s almost never used correctly. If Mark was planning on persuading people to switch, despite thinking that it wasn’t in their best interest, then it would fit.

(A penny drops, the other shoe falls.)

Phil Ringnalda: a digital Kent Brockman.

I better start thinking harder about good things to do with it, before they realize they’re in the underground sugar caves.

Matt? He’s gunning (heh) to be the Ashcroft of RSS, isn’t he?

Comment by Don Box #
2003-04-17 00:43:23

I just posted a table on my blog.

It’s at http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/dbox/default.aspx?key=2003-04-17T07:39:43Z

DB – The Non-Reluctant Overlord

Comment by Phil Ringnalda #
2003-04-17 00:55:37

Well, that’ll work fine for us (after all, I don’t use all that many entities, and often as not I have to look up the name anyway), but how are we going to silence Sam and Jon before they start crowing about how they both just run their posts through Tidy and it converts entities for them?

Comment by Anonymous #
2003-04-17 06:05:49

I don’t understand why Tidy isn’t *everywhere*. It’s freely available, freely embeddable, freely redistributable, cross-platform, and fast. I’m failing to see the downside.

Trackback by Anonymous #
2003-04-16 12:36:44


I’m with Phil — I still don’t understand what the big deal about <xhtml:body> is for RSS feeds. What’s supposed to make it so much better than <content:encoded>?

BTW, Phil, as far as HTML entities go, if you just prefer to use things like &am….

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.