Posted on: 10/16/02 12:48pm
By: Anonymous (seth)
Under feeds on the right hand side of your screen it says:
"Geeklog supports standard RSS news feeds. Aside from being able to show them on the site, you can view the news from this site. Just link to our RDF file." But hey that is not a RDF file.
What am I missing?
PS: Great tool, I'm seriously thinking of using it! Currently Im using Radio for my blog[*1] ; but haven't paid for it yet.
That don't look like RDF to me
Posted on: 10/16/02 01:03pm
By: Dirk
Hmm, the file that the block links to http://www.geeklog.net/backend/geeklog.rdf looks like an RDF file to me ...
bye, Dirk
That don't look like RDF to me
Posted on: 10/16/02 01:43pm
By: Anonymous (seth)
Well i see:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN"
"http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">
<rss version="0.91">
You may want to try to validate that at
http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
an RDF feed for RSS 1.0 would look like:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:im="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/item-images/"
xmlns:record="http://records.sourceforge.net/schemas/rss-meta-module/"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:sub="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/subscription/"
xmlns:l="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/link/"
xmlns:reqv="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/richequiv/"
xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">
That don't look like RDF to me
Posted on: 10/16/02 02:32pm
By: Dirk
I couldn't get the W3C validator to accept the DTD. As you can see, the RDF file follows version 0.91, not 1.0, so it's possible there are differences. So far, I haven't seen any problems reading an RDF feed created by Geeklog with third-party tools.
So other than Geeklog not using the latest standard, what problem do you see with this?
bye, Dirk
That don't look like RDF to me
Posted on: 10/16/02 02:47pm
By: Anonymous (seth)
Hey, it's just fine as RSS. Though I think that RSS 2.0 is going to be the prefered RSS feed version going into the future. But really it is simply is
not RDF.
You seem to be confusing RDF with RSS. RSS 1.0 is RDF, but to my knowledge that is the only popular version of RSS that is RDF.
If a google of the key words RDF and RSS don't convince you of this, then I'll provide you with some other pointers. The dead give-away is that valid RDF must be enclosed in the RDF element and specify the RDF namespace.
Just change your page to say RSS and you will be ok.
That don't look like RDF to me
Posted on: 10/16/02 03:41pm
By: Dirk
Ah, okay, so that's your point :-) I've always used RSS and RDF as synonyms, but I'll look it up ...
bye, Dirk
RSS it is
Posted on: 11/03/02 10:22am
By: nederhoed
Hello, what I did was change the geeklog.rdf filename in the config.php to sitename.rss
And I treat it as an RSS file by not using the term RDF in my site anywhere
By the way:
RDF = Resource Description Framework
RSS = RDF Site Summary (Although I saw Really Simple Syndication somewhere too)
Greetings RR
---
Robert-Reinder (rr@sodutch.com)