- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:57:52 -0400
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Adam Barth wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> Could you elaborate on how this doesn't work with the rules in HTML5? (Or >>> rather, with the rules in Adam's ID?) >> That resource is served with a text/plain mime type, and therefore should >> not be treated as a feed. > > Perhaps we should change the algorithm to consider these documents to be feeds. > >> At the present time, both IE8 and Firefox treat that document as a feed. >> My assessment is that Firefox will continue to follow IE's lead in this >> area, but I will gladly defer to those who actually work on the product. > > That sounds like another argument for changing the algorithm. At the present time Chrome will not treat that document as a feed. My two cents: generally these rules were created not based on first principles, but rather based on reverse engineering a small number of browsers. If it is intended that these rules apply to another class of tools (e.g. feed readers), then I will suggest that reverse engineering the behavior of the top "n" (n>=3) consumers in that category would seem appropriate. > Adam - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 20:58:20 UTC