D'oh. Once more, with reply-all
On 7/27/05, Tantek Çelik <email@hidden> wrote:
> I think the key question is whether the iTunes category is required to be a
> value from a controlled taxonomy (often necessary for commerce reasons), or
> whether it can be any user authored category.
More than any of the other redefinitions of core RSS elements, I think
the key question is whether it's even needed. The iTunes Store will
only use categories that it knows are intended for it, and are from
the list of categories/subcategories it uses. Well, even though it's
used mostly as free text, the RSS 2.0 category element is defined as
exactly that. Rather than the confusing (both to users, and to the
writer of the spec example) element that's either empty or contains
one or more empty versions of itself (hard enough to write), why not
<category domain="http://www.itunes.com/store";>Arts &
Entertainment/Books</category>
<category domain="http://www.itunes.com/store";>Comedy</category>
which doesn't change your problem of people using values that aren't
in your taxonomy either way, but does remove the confusing nesting
problem, and the duplication of a core element (see "funky RSS
kerfluffle").
Phil Ringnalda
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
syndication-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/syndication-dev/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
