Atom 1.0 feed bugs in WordPress 2.2. -was- Re: [wp-hackers] WP issues

[Lloyd Budd]

On 5/31/07, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2007, at 20:25, Lloyd Budd wrote:
> > Wow, there is a great deal of excellent information here! Though
> > making it somewhat negative towards Matt doesn't really help anyone.
>
> There's reasons for everytime I say anything negative about Matt,
> always related to the current subject matter. I think they're all
> explicitly mentioned, too.
>
> > (Nor having a non-descript subject line ;-))
>
> How do you suggest I summarise that entire post in one line? It
> covers too many subjects.
>
> >> 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 4.2.7.1
> >> [RFC4287].).
> >>         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 4.2.7.2 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.
> > http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/24/WordPress-and-Atom-1-0
>
> Actually, for some reason, the site feed and the comments feed share
> very little common code, so Sam Ruby has absolutely nothing to do
> with the comments feed. The site feed is fine. It does however appear
> to be fixed in trunk, though (I'd looked at the log of the site feed
> in SVN, assuming that you wouldn't have such code repeated, but it
> appears otherwise, meaning there are two places to have bugs, not one).

Oh, I am following you now! I missed the comment part of the link to
photomatt's site, and you do not explicitly mention comment feed in
the first part of your email.

Cheers,
-- 
Lloyd Budd | Digital Entomologist | 250-885-1744
WordPress.com | WordPress.org | Automattic.com