-1. If there's anything we can learn from the mess that is RSS, at a certain point feed consumers should be allowed to say simply that a buggy feed is a buggy feed and that it falls on the responsibility of the feed publisher to get things right.
- James James Holderness wrote: > [snip] > Do you still have a copy of the feed you encountered that was using a > base element? I'd be curious to see whether its links and images would > fail to work if you didn't take that base into account? Because if > that's the case, I'd recommend supporting it (i.e. the base element > takes precedence over xml:base or however else the current base uri is > determined). > > In other words, do whatever it takes to get that particular feed to > work. This obviously isn't a common scenario, and it's arguably not a > valid feed, so whatever you do you can't be faulted. Unless you find > more data suggesting this is a bad idea, it seems to me it would make > sense to at least get your one known example to work. > > MHO. > > Regards > James > >
