Re: This & That Contest

Thanks James. That was a great help. Especially the CDATA (doh).

--- In [email protected], "James Holderness" <j4_james@...> 
wrote:
> First, let me just say that I think the basic concept is pretty 
solid, 
> before I start nitpicking. :)
> 
> Nitpick #1: I think it would have made things easier for testers if 
you had 
> used different text for your second example that made it clearer 
what it was 
> meant to be, for example: "The &amp; entity" rather than "This 
&amp; that". 
> With essentially the same text being used in four different fields 
in four 
> different examples, it's going to get very confusing.
> 
> Nitpick #2: Your description of the different kinds of encoding 
kind of 
> glosses over some of the issues. When you're single encoding, 
you're using 
> XML which allows CDATA sections in addtion to the numeric character 
> references and named entity references that you mentioned. When 
you're 
> double encoding, you first use HTML encoding (which is subtly 
different) and 
> only XML encode in the second step.
> 
> The reason I bring this up is because some aggregators have 
problems dealing 
> with certains forms of encodings, both XML and HTML. The format you 
choose 
> *will* have an effect on the results you get. That said, what you 
have 
> should work well enough to determine which aggregators generally 
double 
> decode, and which don't.
> 
> Nitpick #3: I'm not convinced that the server tests are going to 
unearth all 
> the buggy servers. I don't have much data on this, but I have 
anecdotal 
> evidence that suggests at least some servers will quite happily 
single 
> encode an ampersand, but will double encode other characters 
(usually 
> foreign characters or quote characters). I think what you have is a 
good 
> start though.
> 
> Nitpick #4: I suspect some servers won't let you publish test 2 at 
all 
> (they'll automatcially convert the &amp; to & when publishing). It 
may be 
> worth reminding people to check what the published entry looks like 
on the 
> webpage itself before submitting the data in the RSS feed. If the 
webpage 
> isn't correct, then the data from the feed is meaningless.
> 
> Nitpick #5: The links to tests 3 and 4 are wrong.
> 
> All complaints aside, I think the results from these tests will be 
> informative. I have a fair idea how most aggregators will behave, 
but I'm 
> curious to see the results you get from various blogging platforms.
> 
> Regards
> James
>




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-public/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-public/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/