I’ve had a quick read and most of it makes sense. But I have a comment to make on something that bugs me, as a developer of OPML-powered products. I’ll eat my dinner, then drink a coffee and post it on the Yahoo! Group which has been set up to manage the feedback to all this.
First impression though, is that I’m glad to see the ‘include’ type attribute.
I have a comment about the usage of the ‘link’ attribute, which may or may not be linking to an OPML file for inclusion or it may be a link to a website. Checking for .opml is a bit of a pain, when many people use php or whatever to generate their OPML. But I suppose it should be backward compatible with 1.0 for all those opml files out there which use ‘link’ to point to both web links and opml inclusion links. This new spec should get some good traction. I’ll support it. But I personally think ‘include’ should link to opml formatted files only and link should always be a link to a site. Maybe through extending OPML we can provide type flags for links to mp3 files, or video files or software updates, then build clients around this to consume that ‘opml enclosure’ of sorts.
More thoughts later…. meanwhile, have some icons