Cleanup on aisle 3

My weblog now validates as XHTML strict, and my implementation of the Comment API will now produce and consume XHTML bodies.

Users of back-level browsers may find that the comment form doesn't remember you any more.  If this function is important to you, you will need to find a browser that passes this test.

My WSDLs for the comment API (example) simply declare xhtml bodies as mixed sequences of any for now.  Let me know if it would help if this were restricted in some manner.


Ah, but are you willing to serve your pages with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type to browsers that support it (like mine)?

Posted by Mark at

there is small bug in your RSS2 feed generator: it should produce
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1299.wsdl
and not
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/${1299}.wsdl

Posted by Alek at

Doesn't changing the MIME type to application/xhtml+xml mean that ~90% of the humans on the planet can't read your site?

I just surfed to diveintomark from IE6 and got back classic HTML4 - I'm assuming you're doing Accept header magic, yes?

Posted by Don Box at

Mark: I have a ways to go before I can do that.

Alek: thanks!  Sharp eyes... I hadn't announced that I was putting WSIL elements into my RSS2 yet...

Don: Mark migrated to HTML 4.  But you already knew that.  ;-)

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Mark: actually it wasn't as hard as it appeared.  In fact it was pretty much exactly as you described: case sensitive css and defining styles on the html element instead of the body.

Don: don't worry, I'll be sure to support legacy browsers.  Mark's article covers that too.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

You also have to make your scripts use the NS versions of the DOM APIs (createElementNS, etc).

Posted by Ian Hickson at

Ian - I'm assuming you mean in general, not specifically on my site?

Posted by Sam Ruby at


Ummm, it appears to have 7 errors when I clicked the validation link - mostly to do with the &user in the blogshares link.

:-)

Posted by Conor MacNeill at

On my worst copy-and-paste days, I think that if anyone did a weblog program that either did validation when an entry was saved, or at the very least built the pages and ran them through an XML parser to be sure they could be parsed, I'd switch no matter what else it did or didn't do. I think Simon's does that, but he's about nine months late releasing his code. Maybe once I stop being so lazy about setting up a personal ping proxy, I'll have it validate my HTML and RSS, too, and send me a nasty email when I screw up.

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Phil: my weblog software runs all of my posts through tidy, and every comment through a sanitize script.

Both have preview with spellcheck.

Is that enough to get you to switch? ;-)

Posted by Sam Ruby at

I'm completely in favor of there being weblog packages (and any sort of software, for that matter) where if you aren't geek enough to figure it out, you just don't run it. I don't think that everything has to have documentation that starts with the assumption that you don't know how to open a compressed file. But... in this case I'm a long way below the geek bar. A long, long way.

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Phil: so what would it take?

Posted by Sam Ruby at


Comments, trackback, and search, which makes me wonder what I was thinking installing the common codebase: now I'll have to figure out how to merge in yours myself. Oops. Where's my copy of Python for Dummies?

I'm not sure yet, but I might also require support for a separate excerpt: I started using them in MT mostly so I could punish people using aggregators that don't support content:encoded, but now I rather like being able to have an rss:description that's an actual description, not just crippled content. I'm not sure whether I actually require them, or whether I really want to keep publishing stuff that Radio would call a Story in a weblog. I might be better off calling them stories, and teaching mombo to only grab the excerpt for the weblog.

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Phil, when I asked you what it would take... I didn't mean that you had to do it yourself.  ;-)

I'm seriously behind on some real work at the moment, but will get back to holding up my end of the bargain w.r.t the merge RSN.

I do consider separate excerpts an important requirement.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Add your comment












Nav Bar