[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: well-formedness error


At 05:50 PM 6/16/2004, you wrote:

Ok. Just wanted to point out that when I said that there is no excuse not to have well formed xml, I am speaking of the xml itself. The http headers are the responsibility of the web server, and there a whole number of other non xml related things can go wrong, such as the mime type not having been registered with the web server, the wrong extension being used, etc...

Yes, and the simple problem is that on a hosted site it's easy for the headers to not match what the feed has. This is one of the (many) reasons that aggregator developers have to be lenient with malformed content.

On the xml side it should be very easy to verify compliance with the spec, using any of the numerous tools in existence today.

There is ample scope for writing complicated parsers for all the underspecified RSS feeds. Hopefully a good atom spec will make it easy to produce compliant xml.

Henry


On 16 Jun 2004, at 23:31, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:09 PM
To: Atom Syntax
Cc: Dare Obasanjo
Subject: Re: well-formedness error

Like I just said, I tested 10 feeds at random from
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/ListOfFeeds and of the 10

 3 would be rejected flat out since their MIME type claimed they
weren't XML
 4 would be rejected because their MIME contained incorrect
or missing
charset information

Are you speaking about the HTTP Content-Type Header?

Yes.

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If you think practice makes perfect-you haven't had a child taking
violin lessons.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.



<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx