Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
* FOR THE ARCHIVES ONLY -- CORRECTION OF AN ERROR ON A NOW DEAD DISCUSSION. DON'T WORRY ABOUT READING THIS * While on the topic of mis-reads (see April 20th response to James Snell re: Known FeedDemon issue? if reading this in the archives and actually care enough to seek out proper context), I need to repent of this misread: My response: and here I was holding this inside of me as I always assumed obviously it's implemented for a reason This makes me happy :) Thanks Sam! came from reading this: As late as this morning, all link/@href attributes in my Atom feed contained absolute URIs. skimming to this: It would be helpful if people were to update: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/XmlBaseConformanceTests and assuming this was Sam simply stating that using full URI's should be considered a best practice. The next day I reread and realized my mistake, but decided then to just let it be. But in realizing that people might read the archives and walk away completely baffled by my response I decided it would be best to get this error properly documented. On 3/31/06, M. David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and here I was holding this inside of me as I always assumed obviously it's implemented for a reason This makes me happy :) Thanks Sam! On 3/31/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: On Mar 31, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: Sam, Funny that this should come up today given the recent discussion on the mailing list--NetNewsWire isn't getting the links in your Atom feed right. There is an off chance that I have been following the list. ;-) I certainly didn't mean to imply that you weren't--I just wanted to point out what I'm seeing in case you didn't know that this particular feed reader is having this particular problem today. And I thought it might be of interest to the WG to know what NNW is doing given that it's doing something that has been argued against within the last 24 hours. ;-) I don't remember which version of your feed I was subscribed to before--perhaps I wasn't subscribed to the Atom feed and NNW updated my subscription when you redirected to it. So I don't know whether you purposely removed xml:base to see what chaos would ensue, or whether it hasn't been there all along and I just haven't seen the problem since I was subscribed to a different version. As late as this morning, all link/@href attributes in my Atom feed contained absolute URIs. One of the original problems that Atom set out to solve was the desire by people to use relative URIs. Even in their content. In fact, PARTICULARLY in their content. My recent post of Common Feed Errors demonstrate that this demand certainly exists - even in RSS: http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/03/13/Common-Feed-Errors It would be helpful if people were to update: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/XmlBaseConformanceTests - Sam Ruby -- M:D/ M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com/ -- M:D/ M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
Hosting is not the point.Yep. 'tis why I said the word backup.On 3/31/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * M. David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-01 03:15]: Obviously the main wiki would be better, but if this can act as a backup plan, then let me know if and when and I will set up access to that box for you.Hosting is not the point. I have webspace and I can link files Ihost from the main wiki, as before. Collaboration is the point.I'm hoping for a way for anyone to pitch in without having to fight any red tape, so that the test suite can be expanded bywhoever happens to have a spare tuit.Regards,--Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ -- M:D/M. David Petersonhttp://www.xsltblog.com/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
Antone Roundy wrote: Sam, Funny that this should come up today given the recent discussion on the mailing list--NetNewsWire isn't getting the links in your Atom feed right. There is an off chance that I have been following the list. ;-) - Sam Ruby
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
On Mar 31, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: Sam, Funny that this should come up today given the recent discussion on the mailing list--NetNewsWire isn't getting the links in your Atom feed right. There is an off chance that I have been following the list. ;-) I certainly didn't mean to imply that you weren't--I just wanted to point out what I'm seeing in case you didn't know that this particular feed reader is having this particular problem today. And I thought it might be of interest to the WG to know what NNW is doing given that it's doing something that has been argued against within the last 24 hours. I don't remember which version of your feed I was subscribed to before--perhaps I wasn't subscribed to the Atom feed and NNW updated my subscription when you redirected to it. So I don't know whether you purposely removed xml:base to see what chaos would ensue, or whether it hasn't been there all along and I just haven't seen the problem since I was subscribed to a different version.
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
Antone Roundy wrote: On Mar 31, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: Sam, Funny that this should come up today given the recent discussion on the mailing list--NetNewsWire isn't getting the links in your Atom feed right. There is an off chance that I have been following the list. ;-) I certainly didn't mean to imply that you weren't--I just wanted to point out what I'm seeing in case you didn't know that this particular feed reader is having this particular problem today. And I thought it might be of interest to the WG to know what NNW is doing given that it's doing something that has been argued against within the last 24 hours. ;-) I don't remember which version of your feed I was subscribed to before--perhaps I wasn't subscribed to the Atom feed and NNW updated my subscription when you redirected to it. So I don't know whether you purposely removed xml:base to see what chaos would ensue, or whether it hasn't been there all along and I just haven't seen the problem since I was subscribed to a different version. As late as this morning, all link/@href attributes in my Atom feed contained absolute URIs. One of the original problems that Atom set out to solve was the desire by people to use relative URIs. Even in their content. In fact, PARTICULARLY in their content. My recent post of Common Feed Errors demonstrate that this demand certainly exists - even in RSS: http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/03/13/Common-Feed-Errors It would be helpful if people were to update: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/XmlBaseConformanceTests - Sam Ruby
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
and here I was holding this inside of me as I always assumed obviously it's implemented for a reason This makes me happy :) Thanks Sam! On 3/31/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: On Mar 31, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Antone Roundy wrote: Sam, Funny that this should come up today given the recent discussion on the mailing list--NetNewsWire isn't getting the links in your Atom feed right. There is an off chance that I have been following the list. ;-) I certainly didn't mean to imply that you weren't--I just wanted to point out what I'm seeing in case you didn't know that this particular feed reader is having this particular problem today. And I thought it might be of interest to the WG to know what NNW is doing given that it's doing something that has been argued against within the last 24 hours. ;-) I don't remember which version of your feed I was subscribed to before--perhaps I wasn't subscribed to the Atom feed and NNW updated my subscription when you redirected to it. So I don't know whether you purposely removed xml:base to see what chaos would ensue, or whether it hasn't been there all along and I just haven't seen the problem since I was subscribed to a different version. As late as this morning, all link/@href attributes in my Atom feed contained absolute URIs. One of the original problems that Atom set out to solve was the desire by people to use relative URIs. Even in their content. In fact, PARTICULARLY in their content. My recent post of Common Feed Errors demonstrate that this demand certainly exists - even in RSS: http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/03/13/Common-Feed-Errors It would be helpful if people were to update: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/XmlBaseConformanceTests - Sam Ruby -- M:D/ M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
* Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-01 01:50]: It would be helpful if people were to update: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/XmlBaseConformanceTests For that matter, I’ve been meaning to address some weaknesses in that test suite which Liferea 1.0 highlights. Liferea does URI fixup for Atom links in its feed parser, but merely uses the entry’s alternate URI as the base URI when rendering content. So it succeeds legitimately on cases that test things like atom:link, but then accidentally succeeds on a number of cases that involve atom:content where it should be failing. I’ve been meaning to add some aggressive tests which use xml:base values that differ drastically from the nearby alternate URIs in order to smoke out such coincidentally passing tests, as well as some intentionally evil tests with `type=xhtml` where xml:base is set on elements inside the xhtml:div. I expect to see a lot of aggregators fall from grace with such an expanded test suite. Sam: is it possible to host the test suites directly on the wiki, by having pages that consist entirely of verbatim text? Ideally, the content should be rendered inside the wiki chrome using `pre` tags, but be downloadable without the chome by way of adding something like `?display=raw;type=application/atom+xml` to the page URI. That would make it much easier for more people to pitch in. I find the collection of tests we have so worryingly minimal; a lot of the currently lesser used corners of the format are not being tested at all. It makes me nervous that dirty data based on current incomplete implementation behaviour may become too widespread for aggregator developers to be able to ignore it. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
A. Pagaltzis wrote: Sam: is it possible to host the test suites directly on the wiki, by having pages that consist entirely of verbatim text? Ideally, the content should be rendered inside the wiki chrome using `pre` tags, but be downloadable without the chome by way of adding something like `?display=raw;type=application/atom+xml` At the moment, the raw text can be obtained with ?action=raw Of course, that means that the non raw text might look a little weird. I am comfortable enough with the moin code base that I would be willing to code up a specific action just for this wiki that strips leading {{{ and trailing }}} and then delivers the results raw, with the appropriate mime type. How does ?action=atomtest sound? - Sam Ruby
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
* M. David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-01 03:15]: Obviously the main wiki would be better, but if this can act as a backup plan, then let me know if and when and I will set up access to that box for you. Hosting is not the point. I have webspace and I can link files I host from the main wiki, as before. Collaboration is the point. I’m hoping for a way for anyone to pitch in without having to fight any red tape, so that the test suite can be expanded by whoever happens to have a spare tuit. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
* Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-01 03:40]: I am comfortable enough with the moin code base that I would be willing to code up a specific action just for this wiki that strips leading {{{ and trailing }}} and then delivers the results raw, with the appropriate mime type. Sounds good. How does ?action=atomtest sound? Maybe `action=atom`? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
A. Pagaltzis wrote: I’ve been meaning to add some aggressive tests which use xml:base values that differ drastically from the nearby alternate URIs in order to smoke out such coincidentally passing tests, as well as some intentionally evil tests with `type=xhtml` where xml:base is set on elements inside the xhtml:div. I expect to see a lot of aggregators fall from grace with such an expanded test suite. Yep. I've run tests like that. Haven't found a single aggregator (including my own) that handled xml:base on the xhtml:div or deeper. I find the collection of tests we have so worryingly minimal; a lot of the currently lesser used corners of the format are not being tested at all. Agreed. For various political reasons I don't want to get involved with test creation, but I do contribute results when I get a chance (I suspect more than half the xml:base results were added by me). I think you might get more involvement if the tests were easier to use though. By that I mean tests that say exactly how they should be interpreted and that you can see at a glance whether you've got a pass or failure. Having to click through links to see if they are valid can get a bit tiresome when you've trying to evaluate 16 tests on 20 different aggregators. Regards James
Re: xml:base in your Atom feed
Eric Scheid wrote: On 1/4/06 12:24 PM, James Holderness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: one way would be to use img / instead of a / links, with each test image being specific to the test ... that way all one needs to do is read the feed and check to see if the text in the image corresponds to the text in the entry headline. Especially easy if the tests were numbered. My thoughts exactly. You can see an example in one of my base tests here: http://216.93.169.119/atomtests/base/base4.atom That test is a lot more complicated than need be for a conformance tests since it's more informative than simply testing pass/failure, but it demonstrates the concept. And the bit about numbering is also something I forgot to mention previously. Many aggregators will reorder the results of a feed in ways that might not be expected. By clearly numbering every test you can avoid any confusion when it comes to matching the results from the feed back to the wiki page. Regards James