[uf-discuss] The need for a Trackback microformat?
ryan at technorati.com
Sun Dec 4 14:57:53 PST 2005
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
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
> 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 at technorati.com
More information about the microformats-discuss