Hi:
I see that there are 2 rss libraries on RAA:
rss
ruby-rss
Which should I use to publish and read rss data?
Thanks
···
–
Jim Freeze
If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by
the page number.
–
Well … there’s two more out there. Look for ReRSS and
ruby-rss.sourceforge.net (the latter I maintain, although I have
been a bit busy with my PDF library I’m working on to work on it).
RSS and ReRSS are RSS 1.0; Ruby-RSS and ruby-rss.sourceforge.net are
RSS 0.91, 0.92, and 2.0. The SourceForge version is in heavy flux,
and I intend to make it work with 0.9x, 1.0, and 2.0.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2003.05.18 at 21:42:11
···
On Mon, 19 May 2003 10:12:41 +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:
Hi:
I see that there are 2 rss libraries on RAA:
rss
ruby-rss
Which should I use to publish and read rss data?
Jim Freeze wrote:
Hi:
I see that there are 2 rss libraries on RAA:
rss
ruby-rssWhich should I use to publish and read rss data?
Thanks
You actually have 3 choices. 
The “rss” library on RAA uses REXML (a plus) and works only with RSS
1.0. The ruby-rss library (which I wrote some time back) uses xmlparser
and works only with RSS 0.91.
Austin Ziegler is working on a (mostly) API compatible version with mine
which supports RSS 0.9x and RSS 2.0 (but not 1.0). His uses REXML.
But, it’s extremely strict right now, and much of the RSS on the
internet won’t work with it.
His is here:
http://ruby-rss.sourceforge.net/
So, the answer is (imo) that Austin’s library would be the best, but
it’s not quite ready. And, it doesn’t do 1.0. Depends on what your
needs are, though I would say that going with 0.9x and 2.0 will give you
more coverage. I may be wrong, but from what I can see, 2.0 is going to
sunset 1.0.
Chad
Hi,
···
From: Jim Freeze jim@freeze.org
Subject: Which RSS?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:12:41 +0900
Message-ID: 20030518212057.A38515@freeze.org
rss
It can parse RSS 0.9x/1.0/2.0.
It can work if you have REXML, xmlscan, or XMLParser.
SPEED
XMLParser > xmlscan > REXML
It can change output encoding.
For example, you can get UTF-8 string when parse RSS
0.9x/1.0/2.0 encoded ISO-8859-1.
–
kou
Well, I’m an rss newby, so when you say more limited, do you mean
limited in the rss feeds that I can parse/read, or limited
in what others will be able to parse of what I publish?
BTW, is there a fixed port for rss feeds?
···
On Monday, 19 May 2003 at 10:50:59 +0900, Chad Fowler wrote:
You actually have 3 choices.
So, the answer is (imo) that Austin’s library would be the best, but
it’s not quite ready. And, it doesn’t do 1.0. Depends on what your
needs are, though I would say that going with 0.9x and 2.0 will give you
more coverage. I may be wrong, but from what I can see, 2.0 is going to
sunset 1.0.
–
Jim Freeze
Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more
than the estimate the job will cost.
Hi,
From: Jim Freeze jim@freeze.org
Subject: Which RSS?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:12:41 +0900
Message-ID: 20030518212057.A38515@freeze.orgrss
It can parse RSS 0.9x/1.0/2.0.
It can work if you have REXML, xmlscan, or XMLParser.
SPEED
XMLParser > xmlscan > REXML
Does that mean the speed of the leftmost modules is higher,
or that they take more time (and thus are slower)?
···
At 17:36 +0900 5/19/03, Kouhei Sutou wrote:
It can change output encoding.
For example, you can get UTF-8 string when parse RSS
0.9x/1.0/2.0 encoded ISO-8859-1.–
kou
How long can you wait? If you can wait until the end of the month,
I’ll try to have a much more flexible version available (I’m trying
to close out some quick work on the PDF library before I tackle some
much heavier work with it).
By more limited, he means that I followed the wrong rules when
programming it. It doesn’t work with most 2.0 and 0.9x RSS feeds on
the 'net yet; there are several sets of rules out there that I could
have chosen from, and I chose the wrong ones (:
What you publish, however, will be readable in anything that
supports RSS 0.9x or 2.0.
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2003.05.18 at 22:03:31
···
On Mon, 19 May 2003 10:56:55 +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2003 at 10:50:59 +0900, Chad Fowler wrote:
You actually have 3 choices.
So, the answer is (imo) that Austin’s library would be the best,
but it’s not quite ready. And, it doesn’t do 1.0. Depends on what
your needs are, though I would say that going with 0.9x and 2.0
will give you more coverage. I may be wrong, but from what I can
see, 2.0 is going to sunset 1.0.
Well, I’m an rss newby, so when you say more limited, do you mean
limited in the rss feeds that I can parse/read, or limited in what
others will be able to parse of what I publish?
Message-ID: <p05210604baeea6fa187f@[192.168.1.33]>
SPEED
XMLParser > xmlscan > REXML
Does that mean the speed of the leftmost modules is higher,
or that they take more time (and thus are slower)?
faster ↔ slower
···
From: Paul DuBois paul@snake.net
Subject: Re: Which RSS?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:22:30 +0900
–
kou
How long can you wait? If you can wait until the end of the month,
I’ll try to have a much more flexible version available (I’m trying
to close out some quick work on the PDF library before I tackle some
much heavier work with it).
I would like to start playing with rss now, but I suppose I can
always swap in your lib when it is done.
By more limited, he means that I followed the wrong rules when
programming it. It doesn’t work with most 2.0 and 0.9x RSS feeds on
the 'net yet; there are several sets of rules out there that I could
have chosen from, and I chose the wrong ones (:What you publish, however, will be readable in anything that
supports RSS 0.9x or 2.0.
Thanks for the info.
My lib is usable; I just found a couple of minor errors in the
sourceforge CVS that I’ll be swapping in (and it should be more
compatible with 1.7+). It parses the Pepys diary just fine, for
example. It also seems to manage most 2.0 feeds that do NOT use
extensions (the next major step, and one of the big reasons that RSS
1.0 isn’t yet supported).
-austin
– Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2003.05.18 at 22:55:19
···
On Mon, 19 May 2003 11:35:59 +0900, Jim Freeze wrote:
On Monday, 19 May 2003 at 11:06:42 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
How long can you wait? If you can wait until the end of the
month, I’ll try to have a much more flexible version available
(I’m trying to close out some quick work on the PDF library
before I tackle some much heavier work with it).
I would like to start playing with rss now, but I suppose I can
always swap in your lib when it is done.