Re: XML payloads in feeds

On 01/10/2011 04:50 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 19:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> it is doable, but it is a fair amount of work, and will break an
>> unknown number of things, many of which we will only find out about
>> after a release is made and it gets in the hand of real users.
> That looks a lot like the usual rationale for not changing something
> that someone perceives to be broken about browsers / the Web
> platform. :-)
>> Part of the appeal of the feedparser to date is that it is a single
>> source file that has virtually no hard dependencies.  This is
>> something that would radically be changed by creating a hard
>> dependency on html5lib.
> Sadly, it seems that "standard" libraries are always behind the times
> and if you want correct code, you need to import more fresh
> non-"standard" libraries. The dependencies then do become a problem.
> One solution is that libraries use more correct other libraries when
> they are available. That is, feedparser could use html5lib if
> available. (This can cause confusion, though. Everything has
> downsides.)
>> Over time undoubtedly the parsers will improve and html5 will
>> become a part of the standard libraries for many programming
>> langauges, but the fact remains that at the present time very
>> little is available to people who write scripts that compares to
>> xsltproc and libxml2.
> So we both agree that the problem is temporary but we disagree on how
> to react to the temporary state of affairs while it lasts? (My
> reaction is that things will get better soon enough, so it doesn't
> make sense to design elaborate interim solutions around the
> limitations of legacy tools on the content producer side.)

Everything is temporary.  Including HTML5.

In this case, I think the problem will last a decade or more, and merits 
documentation and perhaps some accommodation.  Whether HTML5 already has 
sufficient accommodation or whether adjusting things like the parsing of 
</br> merits revisiting is not something I am taking a position on.

Meanwhile, you continue to use terms like 'elaborate' in order to 
further your personal agenda.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 11:10:36 UTC