Which is technically superior: RSS 1.0 or RSS 2.0? I'll probably
piss off both camps by saying this, but by now they are nearly
indistinguishable. But which one is more widely deployed? It is
clear that UserLand leads the way.
Suppose there is other metadata that Google would like to
standardize so that everyone can benefit. What's the path to making
such a standard a reality? Compelling apps are not enough: one
needs to be able to ensure that there is plenty of content.
Does this necessarily mean that I'll host my weblog on Google's
servers? No. Does this necessarily mean that I'll use Google's
software? No. But, does this mean that I'll support widely adopted
standards for metadata? Absolutely.
I can't wait.
Sam,
It seems your RSS feeds (except for the RDF one) now contain relative URLs only.
In light of the above post, I'm not quite sure if that's intentional...
You know, my little feed reader dubbed "Communist" doesn't care about RSS 1.0 or 2.0. It just maps the fields. I'm considering adding that 3.0 thing, but I've never seen it in the wild (outside your blog feeds list) and then I have to use string tokenizer instead of Xerces (though it would truly be an elementary programming task).
If you can read french, this is a scenario of a "semantic Web" for Webloggers and that will work with HTML as it is now. and it's implementable right now.
Karl - take a look at Cory's excellent MetaCrap essay. Clearly, things are not as dire as Cory portrays, but the problems he describes are very much real.
Bill, unfortunately at the moment, Blogger seems to believe that RDF is for the select few, and leave people like Keith to rely on the kindness of others.
But, as I said above, it is my hope that this changes with the aquisition by Google.
And, Blogger Pro's output seems to be 0.91. As is Blogger Pro v1.1 (Ev's feed). If you want RDF out of Blogger, you've got to go to stevej's "Blogger Pro 5.0" feed, which is currently just flat out evil, with fragments of HTML tags in every single field.