Podcasting with Radio2

[Karin Hoegh]

I have produced my first episode with this tool.

I am not a programmer. However, as an experienced podcaster I have
most of the knowledge to make sense of the backend. And simplicity is
definitely in demand, if podcasting shall grow.

Whenever I have been creating a podcasting feed, I have tested it in
http://feedvalidator.org to make sure that I don´t run into problems
later in iTunes or other podcatchers.

This feed is valid, but there are some remarks - should they be fixed,
Dave, or? http://static.reallysimple.org/users/karin/linkblog.xml

[Dave Winer]

Hi Karin!

First, thanks for using Radio2. I hope you will continue to use it and help us make sure it works great for podcasters.

Now, to the question about feed validators, I assume you're using feedvalidator.org. If so,

http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.reallysimple.org%2Fusers%2Fkarin%2Flinkblog.xml

They do report three warnings.

1. They don't think the content type should be text/plain.

2. They want us to include the Atom namespace.

3. They've not heard of the microblog namespace.

I'm pretty sure those won't be problems. I think #1 and #3 are valid technical concerns.

I use text/plain because I want the feeds to be readable in as many places as possible. This is an effort to thwart browsers who think that RSS should not be seen by users. I think it's like lifting the hood of a car. If you don't like what you see, then close the hood (or hit the Back button). But for some people they need to be able to look. And for some curious people I want them to see we have nothing to hide. In other words, I think the browser guys made a bad decision.

However, if this turns out to be a compatibility problem (imho it shouldn't), we can make the type an option for the user to set.

#3 makes sense -- the namespace is new. I created this namespace because there are features of microblogs that are not provided for in RSS 2.0. This is not surprising because RSS 2.0 is now nine years old. Fortunately it provides a mechanism for extending RSS, and I promise you that the microblog namespace plays by the rules. Again we'll keep our eyes open for problems and address them if they come up. So far we've had no problems.

I think #2 is more political than technical. The RSS spec doesn't say anything about wanting us to include the Atom namespace, nor should it. So I go with the spec, I think the validator is wrong here. And as the author of the RSS 2.0 spec, I think they should listen to me! :-)

But that's life. Again, it very likely won't ever make a difference. That's why political things like this are so lame. The result is that there are a number of feeds out there with Atom namespaces and the authors probably have no clue why. This is exactly the kind of stuff I try to avoid when designing formats. I want the users to be in charge, as much as possible, and for that they have to not be mystified.

Bottom-line: I think we're okay. :-)

Dave

[Dave Winer]

BTW, this is my linkblog feed.

http://static.scripting.com/myReallySimple/linkblog.xml

I'm uploading a podcast right now.

Dave