Re: [Phpwiki-talk] rss

[<la...@us...>]

I looked into this myself for Tony a couple of days ago (or yesterday - they 
all seem the same ...).  

For the record:

Postnuke can't (yet) do RSS 1.0, and doesn't even do RSS 0.91 very well.  So 
its not a phpWiki problem (phew)

Also, is there strictly anything wrong with using dc:description instead of 
description?  I thought that the first was just a fully namespace-qualified 
version of the latter.  The parser ought to be able to cope with it.  

Lawrence


Quoting Jeff Dairiki <da...@da...>:

> > > Also, note that at least one validator didn't like 
> > > what it saw in the current phpWiki feed.
> > 
> > At first look, that looks like a 0.9x, 2.0 centric
> > validator, so it's no surprise it doesn't like RDF 1.0.
> > I'll look into a bit more, though... Thanks for the heads up.
> 
> As it turns out, the validator did have a valid (but minor) beef.
> I doubt it has anything to do with your postnuke problems.
> 
> (Gory details: <description> is a required element of <channel>
> in RSS 1.0 --- we (I) were using <dc:description> instead of
> <description>...) 
> 
> I just checked in the fixes to CVS.
>