- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:32:52 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > Adam Barth wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I believe that all RSS 2.0 and Atom 1.0 feeds must conform to the XML >>> 1.0 specification. I'm not aware of feeds that are less conforming. >>> I'd be surprised if aggregators wouldn't have problems with such. I'd >>> have to defer to Sam Ruby on this one, he's the most expert person on >>> feeds I know of. >> >> Feed are notorious for not conforming to XML. You might be >> entertained by reading source of the Universal Feed Parser: >> >> http://www.feedparser.org/ > > If you find that entertaining, see also: > > http://intertwingly.net/blog/2006/03/13/Common-Feed-Errors > http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/10/22/Happy-Birthday-Feed-Validator Ah, those were the good old days. > > On one hand, I would not recommend that feeds make use of inline DTDs or > uncommon namespace prefixes. > > On the other hand, I know of a number of tools (all from Microsoft) that > will only accept feeds that are well-formed. Having at least one major > player willing to enforce any given rule pretty much a requirement -- > anything less, and people pretty much ignore the requirement. > > [Personal opinion] > > Given that the HTML5 spec requires every browser to implement features like > <font> tags consistently, my personal belief is marking such as > non-conforming mean that validation will only be of an academic interest. > And given that the validation rules in place are not being driven by those > with an academic bent, I don't understand the target market for such > requirements. > > [/Personal opinion] > Good point >> Adam > > - Sam Ruby > > Shelley
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 01:33:25 UTC