Attention.xml, OPML, why not? ** Update

Nick Bradbury and Steve Gillmore have both picked up on my earlier call to restart the conversation around Attention.xml and OPML. In fact they've gone a step further and proposed RSS could do the job if OPML can't:

"Really, the bottom line here is that we've moved past the stage where we have to wonder whether attention is important (it is), so the next step is agreeing upon a format. Given that both OPML and RSS are already supported by every aggregator, why not just choose one and get on with it?"

For Nick and Steve the show-stopper for OPML becoming the format to make Attention.xml real is the lack of namespace support they call out - without it OPML won't do.  RSS has this already, so on the face of it seems like the path of least resistence. Maybe - it is an interesting idea.

So, the way forward, as they see it:


"Get namespaces support within OPML" - I don't understand what the downside to this would be...why not. Dave...if not, why not??

"Store the same namespaced attention attributes in RSS instead" - I have a feeling going down this route would be a 'hotter potato' - ...but again, why not?)
...More thoughts on this later.


Skip to main content