From: Gavin C. <ga...@op...> - 2007-10-30 22:20:23
|
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:13:38AM -0700, Kevin Scaldeferri wrote: > On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:09 AM, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > * Gavin Carr <ga...@op...> [2007-10-29 23:45:05 CET]: > >> There it recommends using < for encoding '<', > for '>', > >> and & for '&' (and does not mention encoding " at all). > >> > > Such an approach sounds even more b0rked to me - it merely works > > around > > a limitation in the feed validator of not checking those, too. It > > is not > > a proper fix, only a disguise - and I wouldn't be surprised if > > there are > > aggregators around that might stumble upon this instead. > > I agree. This change could break things in other aggregators. Yes, it could. But then we'd be in conformance with recommended best practice, and it would be the aggregators that would need to be fixed. But since there's disagreement, I'll leave the core as is, and make the change in my 'rss20' plugin instead. That way the core and the bundled rss flavour will stay as is, but people can use 'rss20' if they want to track best practice more closely. Cheers, Gavin |