Re: Feeds MUST have alternate links?

[Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 11:06:12 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Mark Pilgrim wrote:
> >If you're looking for a syndication format that's even looser and has
> >even fewer required elements than RSS, you're in the wrong place.
> 
> It is
> 
>   http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22untitled+document%22
>   http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22Welcome+to+Adobe+GoLive%22
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22Willkommen+bei+Adobe+GoLive%22
>   ...
> 
> pointless to require presence of meta data that is not required for
> interoperability, and making meta data up just to satisfy obscure
> requirements in a specification actually reduces the value of the
> meta data when used properly.

That won't help you make your case at all.  Channel title has been
required in every version of RSS since 1999, and in CDF before that. 
Are there thousands of "Untitled blog" feeds out there?  No.  Not all
metadata is burdensome.  Some is reasonable to require.

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark