It’s just data

Keeping Keith Richards Company

If you go to Microsoft Team RSS’s RSS 2.0 feed in IE7 Beta 2, Version 7.0.5346.5, you will see:

Now on Video: "Using the RSS Platform on Windows - Syndication Goes Mainstream"

If you go to Microsoft Team RSS’s Atom 1.0 feed in IE7, you will see the same thing.

With RSS 2.0, you can have endless debates over whether the feed provided by blogs.msdn.com is wrong, IE7 is wrong, or if the spec is wrong.

With Atom 1.0, the spec is clear.  If you tend to put things like " into titles with the intention of having it interpreted as a quotation mark, then you need to add type="html".


Small irony being that viewing this post through the Atom feed in Bloglines replaced the amp-quot bits in the blockquote with appropriate quotes.  Damn Bloglines!

Posted by Dan Dickinson at

Not just bloglines — NetNewsWire did the same thing...

Posted by Dominic Mitchell at

Let see if I got this right. The spec is clear, so no need of having endless debates, but becuz two of the most popular aggrivators do it wrong, then people who read the clear spec, if they want their texts to work with the two poppie aggies, have to do it wrong. So is that a clear spec, or did someone just fart-up the whole works? Sorry if I gots it wrong.

Posted by Charlie O'Neale at

Yup. Just like bloglines, this post makes absolutely no sense though Google News Reader.

Posted by Alan Green at

You’re pointing to the Atom feed where you say you’re pointing to the RSS 2.0 feed.

Posted by Paul Robichaux at

Paul: fixed.  Thanks!

Posted by Sam Ruby at

I would like to point out that this post came through as intended on Planet Intertwingly.  So it’s not impossible to build Atom-compliant software, even if you started out as RSS-only software.

Posted by Mark at

Charlie O’Neale:

The spec is clear, so no need of having endless debates, but becuz two of the most popular aggrivators do it wrong, then people who read the clear spec, if they want their texts to work with the two poppie aggies, have to do it wrong. So is that a clear spec, or did someone just fart-up the whole works?

The Microsoft weblog platform is doing it wrong. NNW is doing it wrong. Bloglines is doing it wrong. Google Reader is doing it wrong. And each of them can decide to say “we will continue breaking the spec.”

But there’s no discussion about whether they’re breaking the spec or not. Neither they nor you nor anyone who has read the spec can argue that their behaviour is not in breach of the spec. It is. Period.

So yes, that is a clear spec.

Posted by Aristotle Pagaltzis at

The Microsoft weblog platform is doing it wrong.

To be clear, IE7 displays this weblog entry correctly.  It is blogs.msdn.com that produces incorrect feeds.  And IE7 (and presumably therefore the Windows RSS platform) process the incorrect MSDN feeds per the specification.

It wonder if MSDN will accept a bug report on this... I’ll check.

NNW is doing it wrong.

To be clear, the current version of NNW displays this entry correctly.  Older versions may not.

Bloglines is doing it wrong.

Yup.

Google Reader is doing it wrong.

I’ll bet that they will accept a bug report.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Microsoft is aware of the problem. I’ve reported it to them a couple of times before. They say they’re working with Telligent (the people that handle the MSDN blogs) to get it fixed.

Posted by James Holderness at

Sam: yeah, my point was not that I expect any one of them would refuse (I don’t), just to give a 10 second summary of the classic piece.

Posted by Aristotle Pagaltzis at

Google Reader is doing it wrong.

I’ll bet that they will accept a bug report.

I heard back:

We have a fix checked in. Will probably get pushed to prod later this week.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Feedparser and SAX Code landed on Mozilla Trunk and FF2 Branch

Hey, my XPCOM SAX wrapper and the feed parser that uses it have landed in Mozilla CVS. They’re not perfect......

Excerpt from franklinmint.fm at

As James notes, this is an issue with Community Server 2.0, the blogging software that powers blogs.msdn.com. The folks at Telligent have fixed it in CS 2.1 which is due to be rolled out on blogs.msdn.com towards the end of this month.

For what it’s worth, IE7 treats titles as plain text in RSS 2.0 (and 1.0), and respects the type attribute in Atom 1.0.

Sean

Posted by Sean Lyndersay at

The folks at Telligent have fixed it in CS 2.1 which is due to be rolled out on blogs.msdn.com towards the end of this month.

Excellent!  So by my count every single product mentioned on this thread either is already fixed, or has a fix coded that hasn’t been deployed yet, but will be shortly.

With one notable exception.

Posted by Sam Ruby at

Closet RDF

... [more]

Trackback from Better Living Through Software

at

Closet RDF

Somehow I missed this from Sam Ruby, during the chaos planning for MIX06. Sam gets the attention of “Mr. Safe”, and then proceeds to scare the living crap out of him. The real gem, though, is when Sam explains to Mr. Safe that "Joshua Allen secretly...

Excerpt from Better Living Through Software at

Sam Ruby: Keeping Keith Richards Company

[link]...

Excerpt from del.icio.us/timbray at

Atom Newsreel

I’ve been accumulating things Atomic to write about for a while, so here goes. Item: You’ll be able to blog from inside Microsoft Word 2007 via the Atom Publishing Protocol. Item: Sam Ruby has wrangled Planet to the point where it handles Atom 1.0...

Excerpt from ongoing at

Sam,  for pointing that out — I hadn’t realised that there was a new version, to my shame...

Posted by Dominic Mitchell at

Absolute versus relative URLs in syndication feeds

Absolute versus relative URLs in syndication feeds I just changed DWiki to generate absolute URLs for the ‘(N comments)’ links at the bottom of entries in my Atom syndication feeds, instead of the absolute path URLs it used to generate (URLs without...

Excerpt from Chris's Wiki :: blog at

Atom Newsreel

Tim Bray on Atom Newsreel... [more]

Trackback from Mícheál Ó Foghlú's Weblog

at

Google Reader now handles entities in XHTML Atom text constructs (the underlying problem discussed) correctly. For example, see: [link]

Posted by Mihai Parparita at

Add your comment