W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2009

Re: XHTML character entity support

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:32:52 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270910311832x1d1ed757y4cb6f4065807b79c@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:02 UTC