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 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