> On Aug 12, 2014, at 9:59 PM, Kevin Cernekee <[email protected]> wrote: > > The RSS specs are a little disorganized,
Tell me about it. I think it was Mark Pilgrim who once calculated there were over a dozen different (and incompatible) specs for RSS and Atom. (Some of which even had the same version number. D––– W–––r was in the habit of changing the RSS 2.0 spec without bumping version numbers.) > but 0.91 does say: > >> must start with either "http://"; or "ftp://";. All other urls are >> considered invalid. I can believe it. RSS 0.91 is most ancient version known to Man, and it's even more terrible than the others. Please don't perpetuate it. RSS 2.0 should be somewhat less boneheaded. (Atom is much better, but it wasn't 10x better so it didn't catch on, unfortunately.) There's a chance that Firefox will behave better with relative URLs if you show it you're using a newer spec. (But I can't guarantee it. Parsing RSS is a black art.) —Jens
