Atom 1.0 feed bugs in WordPress 2.2. -was- Re: [wp-hackers] WP issues
lloydomattic at gmail.com
Thu May 31 19:25:47 GMT 2007
On 5/31/07, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote:
Wow, there is a great deal of excellent information here! Though
making it somewhat negative towards Matt doesn't really help anyone.
(Nor having a non-descript subject line ;-))
> 2. Having waited years for an Atom 1.0 feed to be offered:
<Snipped a) , because larger non-implementation issue >
> b) Uses RFC 822 dates (what part of section 3.3 of RFC 4287[RFC4287]
> is unclear?).
> c) Uses @content for <link> (where did that come from? There's no
> @content in the entire spec! Please see @href, section 188.8.131.52
> d) Claims that the blog title is a MIME type, and when the feed is
> meant to link to itself it links to the RSS 2.0 feed (what's unclear
> in section 184.108.40.206 of RFC 4287[RFC4287]?).
> Those four issues are just from a quick glance at the above mentioned
> feed. Seeming so many of these things are CLEARLY wrong, it looks as
> if the person who implemented it had NEVER read the Atom 1.0 spec,
> RFC 4287[RFC4287].
Ouch, bite the hand that feeds you -- in this case maybe even your own hand.
I guess you are saying that Sam Ruby has not read the spec either then.
Anyway, what is really at issue here is that we all make mistakes,
lets learn from them, and correct them as we have the opportunity to.
I am happy to file the bugs for the issues you identify here, but if
you are able to that would be even better because you have a *much*
better comprehension of the issues.
All the best,
Lloyd Budd | Digital Entomologist | 250-885-1744
WordPress.com | WordPress.org | Automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers