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

Re: XHTML character entity support

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:22:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4AECC6C6.3050803@intertwingly.net>
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:


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:01 UTC