On 12/05/06 at 10:48 +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 12.05.2006, 00:50 +0200 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum: > > I had the same problem with mediawiki feeds. To my knowledge, it's the > > only feed generator that doesn't generate "unique enough" links. I've > > added a work-around in the current SVN version that allows to declare > > that items from a feed must always be considered new, never updated. > > (because that's what feed2imap thinks, actually). > I can't follow you there: How can he then distinguish real new entreis > from entries already present at the last run?
Updated items are items with the same URL, but different content. The url is considered a unique identifier by a lot of feed-related software. Too bad mediawiki doesn't agree. > > I hadn't considered using the pubDate. But, after thinking about it for > > a few minutes, I'm not sure it's a good idea: if a feed generator > > updates the pubDate when an item is updated, it will make feed2imap > > think that the item is a new one, not an updated one. > I don't think thats bad: An updated entry might be interesting, too, > even for other feeds. But you could just add a workaround specific for > mediawiki feeds. I'm sure there is some feature in their RSS feed that > you can use to detect this, and enable the workaround for mediawiki only Currently, updated items are uploaded but stored with the same status as before (if it was important, it stays important. If it was unread, it stays unread. etc). Maybe I'll change that, and let the user decide what he wants to do with updated items. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
