What does “funky” mean in the context of RSS 2.0?
A feed is funky if it uses extensions to provide information that can be expressed by core elements. If everyone strives to not be funky, then it becomes trivially easy to write aggregators, and new entrants to the market can get in quickly and at low cost, and users get more choice. If we were to go the opposite way, with every source of feeds inventing their own replacements for core RSS 2.0 elements, the cost to enter would become increasingly high, and it becomes more likely that programs will express compatibility in terms of products, not formats. Then you’d have to use one aggregator to read BBC feeds, for example, and another to read SF Chronicle feeds. So “funky” is anti-interop; and “not funky” is pro-interop. I never wanted to have to define this, because I hoped the issue would go away, quickly. But the people who could have done something about it refused to, so the wound festered. The problem, imho, isn’t the term, but the practice. People should try to follow the spec, a
Related Questions
- What do the terms "alarm point", "display/display number", "port", "address" and "point map" mean within the context of NetGuardian operation?
- What does the Starcom-Ambience merger mean for the employees, advertisers and media houses in the Indian context?
- What exactly does "real-time" mean in the context of production rendering?
