Susan A. Kitchens: It’s crafty. Subtle. With a silent “b,” and is way beyond me. B that stands for Busy. Right here in River City.
It really bothers me when the Feed Validator can’t provide helpful advice.
Susan A. Kitchens: It’s crafty. Subtle. With a silent “b,” and is way beyond me. B that stands for Busy. Right here in River City.
It really bothers me when the Feed Validator can’t provide helpful advice.
Per Dave’s
A Busy Developer’s Guide to RSS 2.0, should the Feed
Validator flag with a warning all RSS 2.0 items that contain a
content:encoded
element?
The style of message that would be produced would be comparable to this one, but with an explanation something like this:
The item contains a
content:encoded
element. Be advised that clients will behave unpredictably in the presence of such an element: some will prefer it over thedescription
element, others will ignore it, and the behavior may depend on the order in which such elements appear in the item.
Perhaps with a link to this post on the rss-board list, and/or with a link to a page on the rss-board wiki which explores this issue further.
What (other?) extension elements should be so flagged?
That doesn’t seem helpful to me. One can always improve the odds of aggregators rendering a feed the same way by removing elements. As you increase the amount of data in the feed, the presentations will diverge. In the big picture, this is one of the big advantages of open data formats. Maybe give a warning when people include more than 3 elements in an item/entry?
P.S. - that post on the rss-board list will age poorly. Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 restores content:encoded (a regression I caused by mistakenly deleting an assignment statement).