User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404)
Phil Ringnalda wrote:
> 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").
It also creates a confusing nesting problem. Try expressing this
example to see what I mean:
<itunes:category text="Technology">
<itunes:category text="Text/Speech"/>
<itunes:category/>
There is no one universal approach to categorization. It is not
difficult to find RSS feeds that use dc:subject or ent:topic.
- Sam Ruby
_______________________________________________
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
