It’s just data


Dare Obasanjo: Your blog is the only one I've seen which supports comments that I tend to regularly post to so whatever you support is what's going to end up in RSS Bandit.

What Joe Gregorio has defined will undoubtedly get supported in Aggie and RESTLog.  Apparently, if I were to support it, RSS Bandit would too.  I suspect others would follow.

The only thing holding me back at the moment is seeing if ChrisAn and Don Box, et. al. want to be involved.

I'm wondering why the Content-Type of the RSS 2.0 item fragment is set to "text/xml", when the auto-discovery "standard" is using "application/rss+xml"?

Also, what about POSTing an RSS 1.0 item?


Posted by Morten Frederiksen at

Hmmm, would it be more palatable if the
CommentAPI supported an optional SOAP envelope?

Posted by joe at

  Re: text/xml, I chose that because it is just a fragment of an RSS file and not a complete RSS file, i.e. it is missing the 'channel' and 'rss' elements.

Posted by joe at

Joe, your looks very good.  It looks like all I will need to do to support the CommentAPI is to check to see if the Content-Type contains the string 'xml', and if so, grab the value of elements from a simple dictionary instead of from the CGI parameters.

P.S.  separator.  Truth be told, I didn't learn how to spell this word properly until I started programming in Ada.  ;-)

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Joe, that does make sense with regard to the missing "rss+" part, but is there any rationale behind using "text" instead of "application" (I'm not going to suggest using "application/rss-item+xml"!)?

On another note: Is the CommentAPI different from (a subset of) RESTLog in any way (it even seems to allow for nested comments, if abstracted a bit)?

Posted by Morten Frederiksen at

  Is there any reason to prefer 'application/xml' over 'text/xml' in this situation?

  With respect to RESTLog, CommentAPI isn't part of the RESTLog interface. I'm making the interfaces independent from each other to encourage their adoption.
I already have support for this in the version of the software I am running:

Which points out a problem with having the interface and the application named the same thing. I need to change one of their names.

Posted by joe at


I wasn't really trying to recommend one over the other, I just noticed the inconsistency.

Per RDF 3023, it seems the distinction between text and application is mostly done by whether a document "is readable by casual users", but on the other hand stating that "Users are in general not used to text containing tags such as <price>". Also, there are some considerations with regard to encoding, since the "text" mime type apparently carries some restrictions - this might be important.

I personally don't have a strong opinion on this (although I think I'd prefer application, simply for alignment with the auto-discovery method), perhaps others could chime in?

Re the APIs: I think the separation is fine, I just noticed that the RESTLog API seems to be a superset of the CommentAPI, and perhaps that should be clear(er)?

Posted by Morten Frederiksen at

CommentAPI, now with SOAP?

Joe Gregorio: would it be more palatable if the CommentAPI supported an optional SOAP envelope? Just be aware that anybody who sends you a SOAP envelope is likely to expect you to respond in kind.  To help further discussion, here is a Cheetah ...

Pingback from Sam Ruby: CommentAPI, now with SOAP?


CommentAPI gaining momentum

Adoption of the CommentAPI is taking off. Sam Ruby is talking about adding it to mombo, while Dare Obasanjo will add it to his RSS Bandit if Sam follows through. Meanwhile Ted Leung has added support in his pyblosxom comments and Adrian Frost is...

Excerpt from BitWorking at

Add your comment