Subject: RSS 2.0 to Atom 1.0

From: Alan Gutierrez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:26:57 -0500

I'm creating an XSLT transform to convert from RSS 2.0 to Atom 1.0.

The mappings posted here are quite helpful...

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared

I'm not sure who to convert the "comments" element, however.

One of the feeds has a wfw:commnetRSS element, that I am going to
leave as it in the atom:entry. Is that the way it's done? Or has
atom defined new elements, variants of "atom:link" I suppose, for
comments.

This may be related to the threading thread, I'm not sure.

--
Alan Gutierrez - [email-masked] - http://engrm.com/blogometer/

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:57:22 -0800

For commentsRSS, you could convert to:

<link rel="replies" type="application/rss+xml" href="{url}" />

The one caveat is that the "replies" link rel has not yet been 
registered in the IANA link registry.

- James

---

From: Alan Gutierrez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:00:05 -0500

> registered in the IANA link registry.

Thank you James.

IANA doesn't seem to list application/rss+xml either. Since I'm
the initial consumer of my converted feed, I suppose I can trust the
mime type I assign.

Cheers.

---

From: "James Holderness" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:50:22 -0000

> the initial consumer of my converted feed, I suppose I can trust the

If the feed pointed to by the "replies" link has also been converted into 
Atom, then that type should actually be "application/atom+xml". If not, 
you're going to have to make do with "application/rss+xml". It's about as 
official a type as you can get for an RSS feed, but it's not registered 
because it can't be registered.

Regards
James

---

From: Alan Gutierrez <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 23:30:48 -0500

> because it can't be registered.

Okay, I'm curious.

With no stake in the answer, mind you, why can it not be registered?

---

From: "James Holderness" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:21:39 -0000

> With no stake in the answer, mind you, why can it not be registered?

From what I could make out, it couldn't be registered because it didn't have 
a real specification and those controlling the format had no interest in 
producing a real specification. If you do a bit of googling you should be 
able to find more on the subject. One good starting point is here:

http://www.kbcafe.com/rss/?guid=20041120071518

Regards
James

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:55:53 -0800

FWIW, "real specification" == internet draft / standards track rfc / etc

James Holderness wrote:
> producing a real specification. If you do a bit of googling you should 
> be able to find more on the subject. One good starting point is here:
>