[whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous

Geoffrey Sneddon foolistbar at googlemail.com
Sat May 16 12:38:41 PDT 2009

On 16 May 2009, at 07:08, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Geoffrey Sneddon Fri May 15 14:27:03 PDT 2009
>> On 15 May 2009, at 18:25, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> > One of the very first uses of RDF, in RSS 1.0, for feeds, is  
>> still  > in existence, still viable. You don't have to take my  
>> word, check it > out yourselves:
>> >
>> > http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
>> Who actually treats RSS 1.0 as RDF? Every major feed reader just  
>> uses  a generic XML parser for it (quite frequently a non-namespace  
>> aware one) and just totally ignores any RDF-ness of it.
> What does it mean to "treat as RDF"? An "RSS 1.0" feed is  
> essentially a stream of "items" that has been lifted from the  
> page(s) and placed in an RDF/XML feed. When I read e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/home.rss 
>  in Safari, I can sort the news items according to date, source,  
> title. Which means - I think - that Safari sees the feed as "machine  
> readable".  It is certainly possible to do more - I guess, and  
> Safari does the same to non-RDF feeds, but still. And search engines  
> should have the same opportunities w.r.t. creating indexes based on  
> "RSS 1.0" as on RDFa. (Though here perhaps comes in between the fact  
> that search engines prefers to help us locate HTML pages rather than  
> feeds.)

I mean using an RDF processor, and treating it as an RDF graph.  
Everything just creates from an XML stream (or object model) a bunch  
of items with a certain title, date, and description, and acts on that  
(and parses it out in a format specific manner, so it creates the same  
sort of item for, e.g., Atom) — it doesn't actually use an RDF graph  
for it. If you can find any widely used software that actually treats  
it as an RDF graph I'd be interested to know.

Geoffrey Sneddon

More information about the whatwg mailing list