RSS 1.0 and 2.0 frustrations

[giza]

Here's a sample RSS 1.0 feed:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF 
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">
 <channel rdf:about="http://www.xml.com/xml/news.rss">
   <title>XML.com</title>
   <link>http://xml.com/pub</link>
   <description>
     XML.com features a rich mix of information and services 
     for the XML community.
   </description>
   <items>
     <rdf:Seq>
       <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://xml.com/pub/2000/08/09/xslt/xslt.html" />
       <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://xml.com/pub/2000/08/09/rdfdb/index.html" />
     </rdf:Seq>
   </items>
   <textinput rdf:resource="http://search.xml.com" />
 </channel>
 
 <item rdf:about="http://xml.com/pub/2000/08/09/xslt/xslt.html">
 ...
 </item>

 <item rdf:about="http://xml.com/pub/2000/08/09/rdfdb/index.html">
 ...
 </item>
 
</rdf:RDF>

Now, here's a sample RSS 2.0 feed:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Liftoff News</title>
    <link>http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/</link>
    <description>Liftoff to Space Exploration.</description>
 
    <item>
    ...
    </item>

    <item>
    ...
    </item>
 
  </channel>
</rss>

Now... note the location of the <channel> tags... in the first example, they surround the table of contents, but not the individual items. In the second example, they surround the complete list individual items.

It took me over an hour to note this subtle difference yesterday, as I was trying to figure out why my program-generated RSS feeds were not being parsed properly. Argh.

Other than that, I do like the fact that RSS 2.0 is far more compact than 1.0.

Comments

[taral.livejournal.com]

No, the difference is that RSS 1.0 uses RDF, and RSS 2.0 does not. This makes them completely different. :)

(Hint: you can put the item tags inside the channel if you want.)

[giza.livejournal.com]

Ahhh... I noticed the lack of RDF tags but it did not click.

Any idea why they dropped RDF for v2?

Also, why aren't you here at FurFright? :-)

[taral.livejournal.com]

Because RDF is heavy to parse.

Because it's in Conneticut.

[giza.livejournal.com]

Okay, makes sense.

No excuses!