Announcing DirectRSS. For when you want as little as possible between you and your RSS.

It’s an open-source MetaWeblog API implementation that modifies RSS 2.0 files in place. It also supports the Blogger and b2 APIs. No database required.

With it, you can use a weblog editing client such as NetNewsWire or w.bloggar to update an RSS feed, then use XSLT or the companion HTML renderer to generate a web site.

To handle larger collections of posts, it supports Dave Winer’s blogBrowser format, which, instead of a single file, uses one RSS file per month and one folder per year. To the weblog client, it looks like one big file, with all posts editable. A file containing the few most recent postings is generated automatically, for the benefit of news aggregators.

It was originally written as an XML experiment, but it’s proven reliable. It’s packaged as a Python CGI script, and comes with its own pre-configured Python web server for running locally. If you already have Python installed, there’s no setup required to run the working tutorial. (If you don’t, it only takes a few minutes to install Python.) It’s compatible with the bundled Python in Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) and other Pythons lacking an expat parser. (It falls back on xmllib.)

New features in this version include full support for namespaces in both the RSS file and the MetaWeblog API, post modification dates, and a tutorial showing how to render the posts into HTML.

Currently, it’s packaged with ShearerSite, the (awkwardly-named) web interface that also performs the rendering into HTML. I may split out just the RSS editing portion if there’s interest. The HTML renderer can display RSS 2.0 files or blogBrowser archives filtered by category, date range, or numeric range.

See the download page (hosted by SourceForge), tutorial, and revision history.

I pointed to Daring Fireball’s Trackback critique, but I didn’t comment. On the Internet, if I don’t do it, someone else will, and this article did. It’s a very well thought-out response.

To summarize: John Gruber’s criticisms of TrackBack are valid, but his referrer system has its own problems. It trades increased ease on the sending side for lower quality on the receiving side.

To improve TrackBack, it should be made easier. I don’t see why all comment forms on sites with TrackBack couldn’t be changed into combined comment/TrackBack forms. TrackBack would almost disappear to the web surfer; it would just be Remote Comments.

I hope to find a way on my own site to integrate comments with static main pages. (I have a few ideas.)

No one has been covering the Internet Explorer from a web author's perspective as well as Zeldman.

2005? Are they kidding?: “Scoble says Longhorn will be available in 2005. Which is another way of saying IE/Win won't change for at least two years. It is not good enough to stay as it is. ...Can anyone tell us how two more years of flawed standards support is supposed to be a good thing?”

RIP:

...Our friends there [at Microsoft], we knew, were working on improvements, particularly in the areas of CSS and DOM support. Yet no significantly new browser version ever came of their activity. IE6/Win still had trouble with parts of CSS1, still did not support true native PNG transparency, and still did not incorporate Text Zoom...

Over the past weeks, the stories we and others have been covering (including the unavailability of an improved version of IE5/Mac outside the subscription-based MSN pay service, and the news that IE/Win was dead as a standalone product) painted a picture of a product on its way out. And now we know that that is the case.

We know that, after spending billions of dollars to defeat all competitors and to absolutely, positively own the desktop browsing space, Microsoft as a corporation is no longer interested in web browsers...

From here, as it has for several weeks now, it looks like a period of technological stasis and dormancy yawns ahead. Undoubtedly the less popular browsers will continue to improve. But few of us will be able to take advantage of their sophisticated standards support if 85% of the market continues to use an unchanged year 2000 browser.

OK, enough quoting. Go read the articles. It‘s getting late, but I’ll comment on one thing. I’ll do it even though it requires another quote.

IE5/Mac, with its Tasman rendering engine, was the first browser to deliver meaningful standards compliance to the market, arriving in March, 2000, a few months ahead of Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 6... IE5/Mac introduced innovations like DOCTYPE switching and Text Zoom that soon found their way into comparably compliant browsers like Navigator, Konqueror, and Safari. And all but Text Zoom eventually made it into IE6/Win...

Add to that feature list the printer equivalent of Text Zoom: interactive fit-to-page controls in the print preview window. A very useful solution for a problem I saw users on other browsers and platforms (including IE/Win) struggle with frequently.

The reason IE 5/Mac was good was because it had to be. It was fighting against a large installed base of Netscape 4 on its merits, and Microsoft couldn’t fall back on their Windows franchise to push it. It was designed to be better than Netscape 4, and it succeeded at that. (Also helping its market share was Microsoft’s public threat to pull Office for Mac, which resulted in Apple shipping IE as their default browser.) Still, the competition made Microsoft produce some of its best work.

Soon after, with the game won (or at least, with everyone but Microsoft having lost sufficiently) Microsoft has gone home. They may have even done that years ago, quietly.

IE 6/Win wasn’t much of an upgrade. (A CNET review: “Just about the only reason we can figure that IE 6 even deserves the full 6 version number is its release in conjunction with Windows XP. For those of you not upgrading to Windows XP, whether you run IE 5.x or Netscape 6.x, there's no need to rush for this download.”)

Which brings up a question: when was this decision made? It was made public only recently, but could have been in the air in the Microsoft executive suite for much longer. They have the money to keep the development teams going regardless of the outcome. (According to a Think Secret article, IE 6/Mac was largely finished last year, but according to a former developer “We were told by upper management to hold it back until they gave it the green light.”) Aside from a 2001 update just to keep up with the release of Mac OS X, there haven't been any real feature upgrades to Internet Explorer for either Mac or Windows for the past three years. Both of them might as well have been cancelled then.

We’ve been using a dead product all this time and didn’t even know it!