- From: Matt Mullenweg <m@mullenweg.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:06:43 -0800
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <geoffers@gmail.com>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > Is there any interest in moving over to a fully fledged XML serializer > (which would at the very least mean any XML conformance bug would be in > one place)? For output that sounds fine. >> However I still do plan to get a spec doc up for it one day. If that >> were a condition of them [MT] supporting it I’d happily prioritize it. > > When I brought this up on wp-hackers in July (2008), I received the > reply (from Otto): > >> If you want it documented, then look at it and write a document for it. > > Either there's a disconnect, or there's a change of plan. Is it still > the case that there is a spec coming? It's still on the list, but it's a long list. :) Most of my attention has been focused on 2.7. > of a byte-stream, massively simplifying it), though it would probably be > unlikely to happen until March/April '09 (I would guess it would > probably be around a day's work). That'd be awesome. > That said, I think having some standardized format would be better, and > something based upon RSS probably isn't a good way to do that (mainly > because RSS is uselessly vague, and WXR would almost certainly have to > be defined as an extension of a subset of that (e.g., Is the title > element text or HTML? Different implementations do different things > here, some performing heuristics to try and determine the answer.), but > also because Atom has far more of what is needed already standarized). Blogger already has an export format based on Atom. Working with that probably should be separate from WXR. -- Matt Mullenweg http://ma.tt | http://automattic.com
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 12:07:23 UTC