[uf-discuss] The need for a Trackback microformat?

[Ryan King]

On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Chris Messina wrote:
> Perhaps rel-enclosure doesn't actually make sense long term. Given
> that relEnclosure, AFAIK, was grafted onto RSS to allow for media
> being "attached" to feeds, rel-enclosure doesn't make sense in your
> regular browser-consumed webpages because we've got <embed> and
> <object>. If RSS had been able to support inline rich media, wouldn't
> those tags have sufficed?
>
> It also seems that relEnclosure was about behavior on the client side
> and less about semantics.

That depends on what you mean by "semantics." :D

> Let's presume for a minute that we've got infinite bandwidth and
> infinite storage. In such a world, all embedded media (and hrefs)
> would be able to be pulled in and cached automagically. In which case
> the need for delayed media downloading would be much less, so even if
> you're syncing your 8,000  feeds,  which all contain rich media like
> podcasts and vcasts, you would theoretically be able to pull all that
> data down anyway for later consumption.
>
> So the question is, what is the most effective way to link to that
> media? Indeed, will the media itself supplant the textual content of
> the feed?

In the case of podcasts/vlogs, I'd say yes. The media file is primary.

> Will feeds simply become the distribution method for rich
> media or eventually get into a TV-for-the-web model where you pick
> people to subscribe to and can "tune in" to an aggregate stream of
> them whenever you like?

Uh, this is already possible with podcasting/vlogging.

> I dunno, and I suppose I'm getting a little
> off topic here.

Yeah. Media revolution is off topic. :D

> So here's what I'm thinking when it comes down to it (now that you
> know what I'm looking at in the future)... Shouldn't relEnclosures
> just be converted to <object> or <embed> tags when they're pulled into
> xhtml?

Eh, don't think so. The use case for enclosures (at least for me) has  
been for the UA to download and queue the media file up for later  
consumption.

> Isn't that what the original intention (and indeed, behavior)
> actually implies? Wasn't the original problem one of embedding rich
> media in RSS and so therefore, relEnclosure is actually made obsolete
> when ported to the world of XHTML microformats?

I don't think so. I think there's still a place for enclosures in  
html. Just like, thought we can send HTML, RTF or PDF (*shudder*),  
attachments are still useful.

> Anyway, sorry to go on and on, must be the Parisien air. ;)

Or the wine.

-ryan
--
Ryan King
ryan at technorati.com