[UPDATE: Mike Champion has taken a few moments to share a few of his thoughts regarding the latest episode in the RSS soap opera. If you're a fan of the Atom format I think his comments will bring a smile to your face. Thanks for taking the time to comment Mike! Your time is without a doubt, appreciated. :)]
Workbench: Really Simple Syndication: The Joy of Specs
The preview edition of Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 only downloads the first enclosure in each item. Power Line users who listen to its podcasts with that browser must manually download the other enclosures, which removes the biggest advantage of podcasting -- instant availability of the files.
Firstly, RSS sucks. Don't use it. Use Atom instead. Why? Cuz' this kind of intra-rival "He said, she said, his intent, her intent" crap doesn't exist. The spec was developed by folks who have a history of writing open standard specifications. The RSS "spec" was created by someone who has a history of creating chaos.
Which group do you think is more capable of producing something that has been well thought through, leaving very little to the imagination?
(NOTE: If you answered RSS, BZZZZZZZZzzzT.TryAgain();)
Moving forward:
Having some experience with producing podcasts, I can promise you that never in my mind did I think "Lets produce several different versions of the same thing so that everyone can download *ALL* of them, to then choose between MP3 format or WMA." To me, anyway, that just seems like a silly thing to assume as the default. Why require an increase in bandwidth cost, just so the consumer can pick and choose between formats at their convenience and my cost?
Of the podcatchers I have used, they seem to choose either the first on the list (IE7) or a format in which it can play (iTunes). From what I can tell, given that iTunes doesn't natively understand WMA, it downloads the MP3 format. Given that it doesn't understand how to play WMA, why would it choose to download both formats? Its simple enough to build basic intelligence into a consuming application to look for a MIME-type and extension it understands. To not build that intelligence, and instead just burn bandwidth for the sake of burning bandwidth?
Dumb.
With this in mind, wouldn't it logically follow that a data feed that contains enclosures should be generated around the general idea that for each entry, if multiple enclosures exist then they should contain the same content, but a variety of formats such that you can reach the broadest audience? This allows nicely for the notion that each entry can contain a summary as to what is contained in the podcast, and have this summary apply to each enclosure. Given you can only have one summary per entry, the notion that multiple enclosures within the same entry can represent completely different content all together is just ludicrous.
In blogging terms, one entry doesn't represent multiple posts, so why would podcasting be any different? Adding to this, a lot of logic can be implied using separate entries for each podcast segment. For example each entry could represent a start and stop point for various segments of a podcast such that a player could logically provide a summary for each segment, a combination of categories, a link to comment on each segment, etc... With all of this in mind, I can't think of any logical reason why you want to provide multiple enclosures in the same entry that contain different content.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that this "idea" is a wide-spread notion that a lot of folks feel is okay. What I am suggesting is that the idea that downloading more than one enclosure that contains the same content, just a different format, is ridiculous, and combined with this last piece theres no logical reasons left as to why one would put multiple enclosures that contain different content into the same entry.
If any of you can think of why any of the above is incorrect in any way, can you clue me in? If it is, then I guess I just don't get it.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.xsltblog.com/xslt-blog-mt/mt-tb.cgi/1391
I used to think you were wasting neurons trying to roll the Atom rock uphill, because the history of RSS / OPML so clearly demonstrates that “worse is better”. But the lastest episode in the RSS soap opera (ahem, http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2860/rss-means-never-being-board … see the comment that starts “Syndication politics are every bit as twisted as any soap opera you’ll see on daytime television …” ) has me wondering if worse really isn’t worse after all. :-) I guess that’s progress.
Hey Mike,
I do empathize with the notion that, all things being (for the most part) equal, then one format over another is really just preference of political party. The reason the Atom effort caught my attention originally is simple:
Folks that I have a lot of respect for, and in whom are extremely busy with their day jobs, chose to spend a good portion of their lives for no obvious monetary or political gain to create a new RSS-like specification. Without any obvious personal gain, the only thing that made sense to me was that these folks realized that RSS as it was, wasn’t going to cut it. Of course it was only a matter of time before I realized “yeah, this is necessary.”
I guess we’ll see where this leads, but I think its FANTASTIC that you feel this way! It seemed to me that it was only a matter of time before the RSS 2.0 “group” imploded, and, it seems anyway that this is exactly what has, or at very least, is about to take place.
Thanks for taking the time to comment! :)