- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:22:46 -0400
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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 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] > Adam - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 31 October 2009 23:23:32 UTC