Month: March 2004

Someone else just doesn’t get it…

Let me let you in on two dirty little secrets of blogging. First, for every blogger, there is probably a handful of readers.

Sure, blogging is a new publishing mechanism (sort of). But it has more in common with wanna-bes who self-publish deathless prose through vanity presses, or pre-teens who pour their hearts out into diaries with flimsy locks, or little old ladies who write poetry with quill pens to read to their cats and store in the sock drawer, than with actual, grab-your-audience-by-the-hair (or other body parts) and get ’em to think writing.

Yawn…

It’s like that phone thing. It tends to be used by teenagers planning what to do on the weekend, it couldn’t possibly be a serious business tool! Or those PC’s. I mean, I love playing games too, but how could we utilize them for professional journalism? Which we need a lot more of!

Still, I no longer have the time to keep updating a personal observation blog. And lack of time is the primary reason I’m abandoning Byte Me’s companion Random Bytes personal blog and will shortly take down its archives.

Ok, so besides the fact that this guy obviously made no useful connections through his weblog, as illustrated by his whining and then saying he’ll shut it down, he adds that he’ll remove all archives, as if in shame of his failed experiment. Well, the Google cache will hold it for a while, and then if we’re lucky it’ll go into the Wayback Machine.

Try talking to people who are using weblogs for everyday tasks directly related to business, or people who use them to solve real problems, or track issues, or do research… or… Many weblogs are authored by professionals who just happen to be experts in their domain. It’s not all angst-filled teens with the weight of the world on them. And honestly, that’s as valid a use of weblogging technology as anything else, isn’t it?

They say open-source will never catch on…

Asa from the Mozilla Foundation says this:

Today in Bugzilla, over 350 bugs were resolved…

We have about 50,000 people who have ever reported a bug in Bugzilla. About 17,000 of those people are repeat reporters who account for about 200,000 reports.

Henrik Gemal is the top bug reporter with almost 2,600 bugs reported…

…more than 7,600 people have resolved at least one bug report.

Boris Zbarsky is our top bug resolver having personally put to rest over 7,700 bugs…

We’ve got a large and prosperous community of engineers and testers but there’s always room for more. Every week we’re growing those numbers, working with lots of new faces — people who have decided that they want to be involved with more than just an occasional bug report…

In reading that you might thing “Sheesh! Mozilla is full of bugs!” but consider that anyone can submit what they think might be a bug, and it might actually have already been submited (DUPLICATE) or might not even be a bug (NOTABUG.) The thing to focus on here is that the bugs are getting addressed, which is more than I can say for some software producing entities…

I know that not every piece of open-source software is Mozilla-like, but there are many projects and products out there that have similar stories, though the names are numbers might be different.

Oh, and way to go Henrik!

Via adrian holovaty: The W3C‘s Semantic data extractor, which tries to extract some information from a HTML semantic rich document.

I also mentioned my idea in the comments:

What might also be of interest is a tool that clearly displayed the outline of a document (as the W3C Validator does) and explains that the words within <hn> tags have more meaning to search engines and other software, than <font> and <b> tags.

Again, the basic idea of “here’s what a computer sees as important” with the extra push of “here’s what search engines see as important.”

Hmmm, perhaps “have more meaning” should really say “are more important” or something to that effect.

Now I just need to figure out how to semantically mark up the bit above where I quoted myself on my own site with a comment I made on another site. Ah, that’s a task for another day…

Often the question of why do we need Atom comes up? Well, to be honest, we don’t. I mean, we don’t need RSS either, do we? But it is nice to have. Why? It makes our lives easier right? Well, it should. As an end user it can, but as a developer it can often make you bang your head against your desk because you long for the simplicity and ease that the users get.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of user-centered design, and putting usability first. In fact, usability should be provided to developers as well as end users. Meaning? Meaning that I want to use standard XML tools to deal with XML. I want XML to actually be XML. RSS is supposed to be XML, but isn’t always XML. Atom is proposed to be XML, and will hopefully be XML. (See Also: Liberal XML parsing related to personality?)

Dave mentions that Borland has an RSS howto, and points to it. In reading The BDN Guide to RSS I find this:

RSS is more or less an XML dialect. I say “more or less” because there is no official XSD for it (although some
have tried) and because a number of sites produces RSS that follows the rules of neither RSS nor XML. This means
that if your application intends to consume RSS generated by persons unknown in the wilds of the internet, you
must be prepared to deal with some less-than-compliant documents. Since non-well-formed documents may be summarily
rejected by an off-the-shelf DOM, some authors resort to writing their own parsers.

Imagine if someone said “Hey, there’s this thing called HTML and you can probably view it in your web browser, but if not, some people resort to writing their own web browsers…” Thing is, 10 years ago that statement would not have seemed that far out there. Today though, I think we’ve made progress, and should continue to move forward.

Here’s what a software engineer has to say when faced with learning about RSS:

RSS is deeply splintered among two competing visions. One says RSS Stands for “RDF Site Summary”, the other says RSS stands for “Really Simple Syndication”. Within these factions, you’ll find numerous minor specification revisions. Most are similar, but differences remain. Writing parsers must be a nightmare.

The specs are really bad. I would have expected to find an official DTD or Schema, but they don’t exist. The
official RSS 2.0 specification is written using some really lousy HTML so it is impossible to print in a decent
way. I spent the last 20 minutes stripping out the garbage (like hardcoded fonts and extra HTML tables) so I could
print a legible version.

Deeply splitered between RDF and RSS? This poor soul doesn’t even know about Atom yet, when he does he’ll start to weep quitely to himself… Well, at least he’s already figured out that writing parsers is a nightmare.

Honestly I see RSS as somewhat equivalent to HTML 4.01, where you could use tables for layout and font tags, and it’s more or less ok, while I see Atom as being more like XHTML 1.0 where things are at least a little more clean and strict, and people try their best to avoid using tables unless they have tabular data to display, and wouldn’t think of throwing a font tag into the mix.

Yes, RSS is growing in popularity. It only took 4 years or so, which on the Internet is a really long time. Companies are choosing to implement RSS feeds. Why not? Everyone else is doing it? And it’s usually safe for Mr. Safe to do what everyone else is doing… Right?

Photo Matt has unsubscribe from the Lockergnome newsletters… Blink! There ya go, I just unsubscribed too. If you are an advocate of supporting web standards, the semantic web, valid code, or just plain quality, I’d urge you to think about doing the same. A nice follow up would be to email them explaining why you’ve unsubscribed, in the hopes that someone there actually cares.

Personally, I first remember noticing the Lockergnome stuff when it seemed to be a good resource for Windows folks, but later noticed they had web development stuff. I took a look and was not hugely impressed, but thought it was well enough done. Their redesign using CSS really did impress me, and make me think that perhaps I’d been missing something. They also became advocates of syndication, which was a good thing.

But now, the credibility is gone. Imaging if tomorrow you went to Zeldman‘s site and it was full of tables and <font> tags and spacer gifs. You’d think his site had been hijacked, or that he’d gone mad, or that it was perhaps April 1st, or maybe April 1st, 1997.

Goodbye Lockergnome, you almost had me at “CSS…”