Julian Reschke wrote:
I think the reason that was presented is that people prefer to publish
just HTML instead of HTML + a feed. Should be somewhere in the WHATWG
archives.
Ok, I suppose I can imagine how someone might find that useful, but even if
there were a demand for such functionality, I don't think the algorithm in
question actually addresses that issue.
An algorithm for interpreting a web page as some form of feed (which is
really what you would need), and an algorithm for converting a web page into
an Atom document (which is what is described) are really quite different
processes.
As for the id bug itself, I think that's the least of your problems.
From my brief reading, the algorithm looks to me to be riddled with
errors, not including the parts that are just plain bad.
Please point those out; as you can guess, I'm getting tired of this stuff.
Optimally in the HTML WG, but if you prefer to do it here, I'll relay your
feedback.
I'm sorry, but that would require way more effort than I'm willing to expend
on something that I believe should never have been part of the HTML spec in
the first place.
The point I was trying to make was that (IMO) you're wasting your time
trying to get this id issue fixed. Because even if you could eventually get
Hickson to fix it, after months of arguing, you'd still be stuck with a crap
algorithm that no sane person would use.
By all means, push for the whole thing to be dropped from the spec if you
have the enthusiasm. Otherwise, my advice would just be to give it up as a
lost cause.
Regards
James
