>* Sean Lyndersay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-09 17:05]:
>>To build on this idea, there is real value on a consistent view of
>>feeds for the user, helping the user understand what they are looking
>>at, and the context in which they can use the data. In fact, that's
>>part of the promise of RSS - consistency.
>
>+1
>
While I agree in principle, my concern is that as Microsoft moves forward
with this reasonable tact for IE and on behalf of the web feed community,
Mozilla, Safari and others will have their own solution which is different
and also "consistent". The published SSE extensions are a good step in
making this consistency stick, but will these others use SSE or yet another
solution. Why can't I publish my own stylesheet and use these Microsoft
elements for collation, background, etc. This Microsoft stylesheet should
be replaceable.
>>Finally, we think that feeds+stylesheets exist as a stopgap measure to
>>help users avoid the nasty XML view in browsers that don't support
>>feeds (yes, this is a generalization, and some people are building web
>>sites that are built in a more complicated way, but in the vast
>>majority of cases, it's true).
>
>+1
>
>>I argue that the right thing for a publisher is to serve HTML when they
>>want control over the look and feel of the entire set of content, and
>>to serve RSS/Atom when they want their data consumed as a feed (which
>>has always meant surrendering the look-and-feel to the particular
>>client the user chooses).
>
>+1
>
Sure, serving XHTML is just a one off for my app, but part of my goal is to
clarify this behavioral standard for the browser / feed reader / aggregator
community.
The publisher is thus henceforth locked into the IE browser's look and feel
for the subscription & presentation page, which works fine of course. This
is a browsers becoming a reader and an aggregator, and it's tricky.
-James
