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 18:01:52 +0000
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DA8125E8-1379-4098-86EC-1E714329AB2E@mpr.org>
Thanks much! I’ll look into it. I hope he’ll see the http limitation as too restrictive regardless of his views on the need for https.

~William Johnston

On 1/24/17, 11:50 AM, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

    On 1/24/17 12:36 PM, Johnston, William wrote:
    > 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?
    You are welcome to talk to the author of the RSS 2.0, but be aware that 
    he is unlikely to agree with either of those alternatives.  Something 
    that might provide some insight into his thinking along those lines:

    > Thanks all,
    > ~William Johnston
    - Sam Ruby
    > 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.
    >       —Mike
    >     --
    >     Michael[tm] Smith https://sideshowbarker.net/


Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2017 18:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 24 January 2017 18:02:29 UTC