OT - RSS Question

[SamMan]

Sorry for the off-topic, but I could not find another source on my news
server...

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files? I have seen both .rss &
..xml. I am familiar with XML, but have not worked with the other. CNN is an
example of having .rss files (or so it appears)...
http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/

Thanks.

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com>
writing in news:Cz*************@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

Sorry for the off-topic, but I could not find another source on my news
server...

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files? I have seen both
.rss & .xml. I am familiar with XML, but have not worked with the
other. CNN is an example of having .rss files (or so it appears)...
http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/

Thanks.

RSS files are in XML format
Specs: <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss>

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[SamMan]

Why is this file using an .rss extension?
http://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_topstories.rss

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious...

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply
"Adrienne" <ar********@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xn****************************@207.115.63.158 ...

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com>
writing in news:Cz*************@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

Sorry for the off-topic, but I could not find another source on my news
server...

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files? I have seen both
.rss & .xml. I am familiar with XML, but have not worked with the
other. CNN is an example of having .rss files (or so it appears)...
http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/

Thanks.

RSS files are in XML format
Specs: <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss>

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[Tim]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:06:57 +0000, SamMan wrote:

Why is this file using an .rss extension?

Probably because that's how the server is configured. Suffixes mean
nothing in URIs, merely a recognisable request. If the server says that
it's XML data type, it's XML data, even if you send it with a URI ending
with ".blendedfrog" ;-)

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:07:46 GMT, "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote:

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files?

There is none. Either works, both are equally good. In many cases (a
dynamic site) there won't be a "file extension" anyway. Once the
content has passed through the server and onto the web then there is no
"file extension", there's just the content-type and perhaps some random
characters at the tail of the URL - the content type always trumps the
URL's tail.

The HTTP content type header should indicate that it's RSS and must
indicate that it's XML or RSS. Don't leave your server in the default
state of serving it as text/plain or text/html

There is no agreement as to the _best_ media type to use. In practice so
many servers get it wrong that a feed reader will actually look at
whatever URL it's pointed at and just assumes that it's RSS.

If you're using Apache, your .htaccess might include something like
this:

AddType text/xml .xml
AddType application/rss+xml .rss

Personally I use the .rss extension and the more specific content type.

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <tb********************************@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

AddType text/xml .xml

Or, rather, AddType application/xml .xml

text/xml is considered harmful.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[SamMan]

"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:tb********************************@4ax.com...

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:07:46 GMT, "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote:

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files?

There is none. Either works, both are equally good. In many cases (a
dynamic site) there won't be a "file extension" anyway. Once the
content has passed through the server and onto the web then there is no
"file extension", there's just the content-type and perhaps some random
characters at the tail of the URL - the content type always trumps the
URL's tail.

The HTTP content type header should indicate that it's RSS and must
indicate that it's XML or RSS. Don't leave your server in the default
state of serving it as text/plain or text/html

There is no agreement as to the _best_ media type to use. In practice so
many servers get it wrong that a feed reader will actually look at
whatever URL it's pointed at and just assumes that it's RSS.

If you're using Apache, your .htaccess might include something like
this:

AddType text/xml .xml
AddType application/rss+xml .rss

Personally I use the .rss extension and the more specific content type.

I don't have the level of access to modify the .htaccess. Would this be
something that the admin's could set on a dir by dir basis? The reason I am
asking is that I too would rather use .rss files, and had created one, but
when I tried to access it, I wouldn't even get the document tree. I was told
that nothing had to be config'd on the server, but now I am becoming suspect

I based my file on one of CNN's...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>CNN.com</title>
<link>http://www.cnn.com/rssclick/?section=cnn_topstories</link>
<description>CNN.com delivers up-to-the-minute news and information on the
latest top stories, weather, entertainment, politics and more.</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.</copyright>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:30:21 EDT</pubDate>
<ttl>5</ttl>

- <title>Police: Latest bombers failed</title>
<link>http://www.cnn.com/rssclick/2005/WORLD/europe/07/21/london.tube/index.html?section=cnn_topstories</link>
<description>Two weeks to the day after the July 7 London bombings,
attackers tried -- and failed -- to set off bombs at three subway stations
and on a double-decker bus. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said:
"Clearly the intention must have been to kill."</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:01:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:24:37 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
wrote:

Or, rather, AddType application/xml .xml

text/xml is considered harmful.

Again, it depends who you ask and why you serve it.

I don't need to serve XML as application/xml. I'd always be serving it
instead as application/foo+xml or something else that's more specific.
"Plain old unspecified XML" is only something I deal with if it really
_is_ "plaintext with knobs on" and so text/xml is entirely appropriate.

Why do you think "text/xml is considered harmful" ?

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,
<aJ**************@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
the lovely and talented SamMan
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:tb********************************@4ax.com...

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:07:46 GMT, "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote:

What is the difference in extensions for RSS files?
There is none. Either works, both are equally good. In many cases (a
dynamic site) there won't be a "file extension" anyway. Once the
content has passed through the server and onto the web then there is no
"file extension", there's just the content-type and perhaps some random
characters at the tail of the URL - the content type always trumps the
URL's tail.

The HTTP content type header should indicate that it's RSS and must
indicate that it's XML or RSS. Don't leave your server in the default
state of serving it as text/plain or text/html

There is no agreement as to the _best_ media type to use. In practice so
many servers get it wrong that a feed reader will actually look at
whatever URL it's pointed at and just assumes that it's RSS.

If you're using Apache, your .htaccess might include something like
this:

AddType text/xml .xml
AddType application/rss+xml .rss

Personally I use the .rss extension and the more specific content type.

I don't have the level of access to modify the .htaccess.
There isn't a "the" .htaccess. It is a dot file in your own
directory. Your server may use software that doesn't recognize
..htaccess, and your server may be configured to disable some or
all options in .htaccess. But if you cannot modify files in
your own web directory, you cannot have a website.
Would this be something that the admin's could set on a dir by
dir basis?

Yes, they *could*. But in practice they generally set some
defaults for a particular class of users and also set what kind
of options can be set in *a* user's .htaccess.

--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/
I don't see posts from or threads started from googlegroups.
War on Terrorism: Bad News from the Sanity Front
"In this autumn of anger, even a liberal can find his thoughts turning to ...
torture." --Jonathan Alter,_Newsweek_

[SamMan]

"Lars Eighner" <ei*****@io.com> wrote in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...

There isn't a "the" .htaccess. It is a dot file in your own
directory. Your server may use software that doesn't recognize
.htaccess, and your server may be configured to disable some or
all options in .htaccess. But if you cannot modify files in
your own web directory, you cannot have a website.

Would this be something that the admin's could set on a dir by
dir basis?

Yes, they *could*. But in practice they generally set some
defaults for a particular class of users and also set what kind
of options can be set in *a* user's .htaccess.

Thanks, Lars.
It looks as though my suspicions may be correct. What they are telling me
and what they are actually doing are two different things. I work for a
state agency, and 99% of our state's sites are hosed by one, outside company
(don't ask me why... politics...). A major portion of the 'webmasters' have
no business logging onto a server, so I'm sure they keep all of the sites
pretty restricted on what can be done. My 'quiz' with them will have to
continue, so I can use .rss files.

Thanks.

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

[Andy Dingley]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:46:46 GMT, "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote:

I don't have the level of access to modify the .htaccess.

Of course you do - just try it (assuming you are running Apache)
Google knows the details.

One of the best things about Apache is that admins have to be both
butt-headedly uncooperative _and_ knowledgeable to stop you working with
your local .htaccess files. The combination is fortunately rare.

Of course if you're using IIS, then you need to slip a bribe to the
sysadmin, sacrifice a chicken to BillG, and even then it will go
pear-shaped.

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <vf********************************@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

Why do you think "text/xml is considered harmful" ?

The de jure character encoding rules are incompatible with the de facto
needs and practice.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[James Pickering]

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:46:46 GMT, "SamMan" <sa*@psfdevrip-it.com> wrote:

I don't have the level of access to modify the .htaccess.

Of course you do - just try it (assuming you are running Apache)
Google knows the details.

One of the best things about Apache is that admins have to be both
butt-headedly uncooperative _and_ knowledgeable to stop you working with
your local .htaccess files. The combination is fortunately rare.

Of course if you're using IIS, then you need to slip a bribe to the
sysadmin, sacrifice a chicken to BillG, and even then it will go
pear-shaped.

If your Web service provider uses Zeus for their server implementation
you should be able to utilize .htaccess files without restriction.
Unless your WSP is employing an unusual Zeus configuration, you can
effect content-negotiation using PHP to generate a pre-processing
script routine.

James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:36:02 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
wrote:

Why do you think "text/xml is considered harmful" ?

The de jure character encoding rules are incompatible with the de facto
needs and practice.

And what does that mean ?

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <7s********************************@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:36:02 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
wrote:

Why do you think "text/xml is considered harmful" ?

The de jure character encoding rules are incompatible with the de facto
needs and practice.

And what does that mean ?

Per RFC 3023, the rules for text/xml are as follows:
1) If there is a charset parameter on the HTTP level, the value of that
parameter is to be used as the character encoding.
2) Else, the encoding is US-ASCII. No exceptions.

For application/xml, OTOH, the rules are:
1) If there is a charset parameter on the HTTP level, the value of that
parameter is to be used as the character encoding.
2) Else, apply the sniffing algorithm from the XML spec.

IMHO, the desirable situation is using application/xml without a charset
parameter so that the sniffing algorithm from XML spec kicks in.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Andy Dingley]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:51:46 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
wrote:

Per RFC 3023, the rules for text/xml are as follows:
1) If there is a charset parameter on the HTTP level, the value of that
parameter is to be used as the character encoding.
2) Else, the encoding is US-ASCII. No exceptions.

Thankyou, that's a lot clearer.

I don't have much of a problem with this (in practice) - it just means
you may need a consistent encoding across all your XML files (admittedly
a somewhat awkward restriction) and you then apply a trivial bit of
server config with

AddCharset iso-8859-1 .xml

or similar in .htaccess