W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Feed Validator HTTPS enclosure URL

From: Johnston, William <wjohnston@mpr.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:36:03 +0000
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1C2DD4AE-4D8C-49B6-83C9-F63B02273714@mpr.org>
Trouble is that to a certain extent publishers who’s bread and butter involves people downloading podcasts care deeply about compatibility with existing readers. I’m going to start looking into adding an Atom feed for anyone who requires https audio from us, but it is entirely possible that this will not be accepted in some circumstances.

My initial hope was that the community could just agree that for the purposes of the RSS spec, “http” includes encrypted http/https. Then we make that change to the validator and move on with life.

I’m totally willing to start pushing an RSS 2.0.12 that adds https (http/2?) to the list, or removes the requirement entirely. I’m not exactly sure where/how to do this, however. If someone could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it. It seems like the RSS Board, and its associated mailing lists are defunct.

It sounds like RSS either needs to be changed, or officially marked as deprecated in favor of Atom. Does this make sense?

Thanks all,
~William Johnston

On 1/23/17, 10:45 AM, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org> wrote:

    Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 2017-01-23 11:15 -0500:
    > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b38b2d82-c6fc-2582-bdc5-78380af5a6aa@intertwingly.net>
    > Related reading:
    > https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/12

    > https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/16

    > https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/17

    > https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/30

    Well that’s all pretty depressing.
    I agree with Tim Pritlove’s comment there that “Not supporting https is
    just not reality-compliant”.
    > TL;DR: indeed a number of authors disagree with the spec writer on this
    > topic.  If either the spec were updated, or those authors got together and
    > produced a different spec, the feedvalidator would be updated.
    OK, from I’ve just gleaned then this seems to deficiency is in RSS and not
    in Atom. If that’s the case then it seems clear it would be fruitless to
    try to get any changes made to the RSS spec. And personally as far as the
    W3C Feed Validator goes, I will not put time into helping get any changes
    made to its RSS support (as opposed to its Atom).
    It’s not clear to me why in this decade anybody would choose to still be
    publishing RSS feeds rather than Atom feeds. But if they are choosing to do
    that I definitely don’t have interest in helping make it easier to do that.
    Michael[tm] Smith https://sideshowbarker.net/


Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:36:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 24 January 2017 17:36:41 UTC