Mark James
| |
Actually, at least the version of MT I use (2.51) generates both versions, automatically. Other tools certainly could. So in a way it is really a choice for the aggregator, not the blogger. And at least my PHP aggregator (Rippy the Aggregator) seems to understand both.
> Terry Frazier wrote:
> Some of the best places to find info on the RDF vs RSS issue are:
>In short, RSS v.091/092/2.0 meet the needs of most bloggers pretty well. RDF (aka RSS 1.0) seems bigger, more complicated, less widespread, and less easily grasped by non-geeks. But either works.
>
>
>> danny sullivan wrote:
>>Does anyone know the difference between a site summary in .RDF vs one named RSS.XML? I think that moveable type uses RDF, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Private Reply to Mark James (new win) |