Hi,
I'm the person proposing the WMD/QSM standards for Weblog markup.
(1) From Chris Croon:
Sorry if I'm totally missing the point but what exactly does this offer
as an improvement on RSS 1.0 [1] with DC [2] and Qualified DC metadata
[3] and the already existing extensibility [4]?
--
This is not meant to be a replacement for RSS by any means, and thus really
isn't directly comparable.
This markup is aimed at providing metadata for HTML 4.01, which of course is
not XML or RSS compatible (without the use of <link> tags). One of the
purposes of this metadata is, in fact, to generate RSS for weblogs that
cannot provide it themselves. In particular, Blogger (claims 1,000,000
weblogs registered) does not provide a method of creating RSS feeds.
BloggerPro does provide RSS, but it incorrectly quotes special characters
and thus doesn't provide valid XML. GreyMatter (at least the versions I am
familiar with) does not provide RSS.
There is the possibility of inserting RSS/RDF tags directly into the HTML
markup, but feedback I've seen in other places seems to suggest it's a
really bad idea to start inserting non-standard tags into HTML.
I have been offering RSS feeds, with a fair measure of success, for anyone
willing to sign up with my project (details here:
http://www.davidjanes.com/blogosphere/news/2003_01_26_archive#88218049)
The primary problem with this is was that I was displeased with a comments
based metadata system and wanted
something the felt a little more standard. I believe there is a need for
standardization of this metadata (even in
an informal, de facto sort of way) because of the appearance of other tools,
such as Blizg and GeoURL
that are also introducing metadata into HTML documents (and not following
DC, BTW).
The vocabulary of WMD/QSM is driven, to some degree, by backwards
compatibility with blogging system templates.
(2) From Jon Hanna
There's the addition of "DC.Publisher.CMS", perpetuating the myth that
blogging tools are Content Management Systems.
--
I'd love a pointer as to why it's not, or what it should be. I took this
terminology from the WMDI project, and it seemed suitable. Suggestions are
more than welcome. I'll certainly be looking into changing
"DC.Identifier.MovedTo" to "DC.Relation.MovedTo".
(3)
Thanks to David Bigwood for bringing this forward for me.
Thanks, and I'm looking forward to any more input that you may have
David
|