Content encoded
Phil Ringnalda makes some excellent observations on encoded HTML in RSS feeds. What is needed is a glyph which visually looks like less than and greater than signs but with none of the semantics. I'm tempted to use single guillemet characters.
‹foo›
Update: apparently double guillemet characters are more widely deployed. «doubleFoo»
Let me withdraw that last line. But still, ditching the semantics of HTML tags in an RSS item to work around this issue doesn't seem right.
Posted by Filip Salomonsson at
The *best* solution is probably something like Chuck Shotton's proposal for a content type attribute, a sort of mod_content medium, between content:encoded and the full-on mod_content, but I'd like some warning before the start of the discussion about what the default content type for description will be, so I can go on vacation for that three months.
The best solution we can actually have? I'm still hoping that one will occur to someone - I don't mind using some other character sometimes, but at other times I post HTML with instructions to copy it and paste it in somewhere.
Posted by Phil Ringnalda at
I think the solution that I am personally going to head towards is simple textual excerpts as descriptions, and separate encoded html content elements.
Posted by Sam Ruby at
Phil Ringnaldamakes some excellent observations on encoded HTML in RSS feeds. What is needed is a glyphwhich visually looks like less than and greater than signs but with none of the semantics. I’m tempted to use single...
Excerpt from phil ringnalda dot com: Now that's ironic: Comments at
Using guillemets might be visually OK, but an HTML sample using guillemets instead of less-than and greater-than signs would no longer be HTML. That's a problem.
Isn't the content:format thingamabob really the best solution to this?
Posted by Filip Salomonsson at