Re: [videoblogging] Reltag support

Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:10:17 -0700

yes, that is correct.

also, just look here:
http://www.w3.org/XML/Linking


On 4/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,

(I read what I wrote here, and I noticed that it sounds a bit rude.  Please note that I am NOT trying to be rude.  E-mai just sometimes makes it sound that way.  But anyways....)

I disagree.

Whether you can click on a link or not is irrelevant.  ("clicking" assumes a Human-Computer Interface that uses a "mouse" or something like it.)  The definition of "Hypertext" does not require it.  (All you need from the Human-Computer Interface is some way of "following" links.  This could even be something as exotic as a voice system.  Infact, there are phone systems that are based on Hypertext formats.)

Also, you do NOT have to render RSS to HTML to get links.  However, if your software uses a "browser" as your rendering "engine" then it may be the case that your software needs to do this.  But this is simply because you are using a "browser" as your "engine".  (There's nothing that requires you to do this.)

One could write a system totally independent of HTML for rendering RSS.

Now, I will say that RSS does NOT have a ridged specification for how "rendered RSS" should look.  (People are basically free to render it however they want.)  But that still does not mean that you need to render it HTML.

By definition RSS is Hypertext.


See ya

On 4/18/06, Joshua Kinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RSS doesn't have real links that you can click on, unless its rendered as HTML.
RSS isn't hypertext. It's just data. What you do with that data is
another story, and its quite common to use XSLT to transform RSS into
hypertext that can be rendered in a browser appropriately.

-Josh


On 4/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Hello David,
>
> HTML is just one example of Hypertext.  (Although probably the most popular
> one.)
>
> Both RSS and Atom are Hypertext too!
>
> Basically, if you've got "links", then (by definition) you're Hypertext.
>
>
> See ya
>
>
> On 4/18/06, David Meade < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > perhaps but doesnt HREF actuall mean "hypertext reference" ... this
> wouldnt be a html doc, and would have to point to one (maybe it points to
> anohter xml doc)
> >
> > URL seems to be a pretty strandard attribute in RSS ... I could see using
> IRI ...
> >
> > eh, we'll burn that bridge if the extension is ever actuall designed. :-P
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/18/06, David Meade < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yeah they arent really the same thing.  All the ways they are different
> hit you when you try to code around them.  I've treated them mostly the same
> on my site, but have found myself very limited at times because of it.  I've
> often wished I'd written my system differently so that it made clear what
> was a category and what was a tag ... but back when I was learning the
> difference I relied on Technorati to show me the way ... which may not have
> been the best idea. :-P
> > >
> > > I like Devlon's description:  Posts belong to categories.  Tags belong
> to posts.
> > >
> > > Not to get too far off topic here but the more I think about a tag
> extension to rss the more I love the idea.  It could even have optional
> links to various clouds.  Something like:
> > >
> > >   <tag name="videobloggingweek2006">
> > >     <link url="">> http://www.mefeedia.com/tags/videobloggingweek2006/ ">MeFeedia</link>
> > >     <link
> url="" href="http://technorati.com/tag/videobloggingweek2006" target="_blank" >http://technorati.com/tag/videobloggingweek2006 ">Technorati</link>
> > >     <link url="">> http://fireant.tv/directory/tags/videobloggingweek2006? ">FireAnt</link>
> > >     ... etc etc ...
> > >   <tag>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I know I'm nitpicking (yet again), but... if you want to go down that
> path... I'd suggest calling that attribute "href" instead of "url".  Here's
> some reasons for that:
> >
> >
> >
> > We keep on changing the name we call these things.  First they were URL's.
>  Then they were URI's.  And now they're IRI's.  (There might even be a new
> name now.)  So picking a name like that will, at best, make it seem dated,
> and at worst, confuse people.
> > "href" has much much more common usage.
> > "href" is used by HTML (so this will seem familiar to people who know
> HTML).
> > "href" is used by Atom (so this will seem familiar to people who know
> Atom).
> >
> > See ya
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I imagine a script could be written pretty easily for use in
> most/any/all blog systems to parse out rel=tag and add the rss info.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway ... great update to mefeedia! :-)
> > >
> > > - Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/18/06, Devlon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Peter,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/18/06, Peter Van Dijck < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, why is it philosophically the wrong
> approach to use
> > > > > > > the RSS category element?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because a category is not the same as a tag.. Tags are used
> > > > > > descriptively, categories are often things like "Announcements",
> > > > > > things that aren't really tags. I am quite wary about using tags
> in
> > > > > > the wrong way... But there is no right answer, of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm... I've always considered them to be exactly the same thing.
> They're just labels you are labelling things with.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the scope is different.  Tags are granular, portions of a post
> can be tagged...categories are like  'containers'.  Posts belong to a
> category....tags belong to a post.
> > > >
> > > > That's just my read on it though.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't think it mattered whether you call them "tags" or
> "categories" or "keywords".  They all really seem the same.  (It's up to you
> in what kind of "meaning" you put behind them.)
> > > > >
> > > > > The only difference I've seen with this type of stuff is whether the
> "creator" or the "users" tagged this stuff.  (But, what we're talking about
> here is "creator" tagged stuff.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[...]

--
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                http://maketelevision.com/


SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Use

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS





--
Sull
http://vlogdir.com
http://SpreadTheMedia.org
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to