Atom 1.0 feed bugs in WordPress 2.2. -was- Re: [wp-hackers] WP issues

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 31 May 2007, at 20:25, Lloyd Budd wrote:
> Wow, there is a great deal of excellent information here! Though
> making it somewhat negative towards Matt doesn't really help anyone.

There's reasons for everytime I say anything negative about Matt,  
always related to the current subject matter. I think they're all  
explicitly mentioned, too.

> (Nor having a non-descript subject line ;-))

How do you suggest I summarise that entire post in one line? It  
covers too many subjects.

>> 2. Having waited years for an Atom 1.0 feed to be offered:
>
> <Snipped a) , because larger non-implementation issue >
>
>>         b) Uses RFC 822 dates (what part of section 3.3 of RFC 4287 
>> [RFC4287]
>> is unclear?).
>>         c) Uses @content for <link> (where did that come from?  
>> There's no
>> @content in the entire spec! Please see @href, section 4.2.7.1
>> [RFC4287].).
>>         d) Claims that the blog title is a MIME type, and when the  
>> feed is
>> meant to link to itself it links to the RSS 2.0 feed (what's unclear
>> in section 4.2.7.2 of RFC 4287[RFC4287]?).
>>
>> Those four issues are just from a quick glance at the above mentioned
>> feed. Seeming so many of these things are CLEARLY wrong, it looks as
>> if the person who implemented it had NEVER read the Atom 1.0 spec,
>> RFC 4287[RFC4287].
>
> Ouch, bite the hand that feeds you -- in this case maybe even your  
> own hand.
>
> I guess you are saying that Sam Ruby has not read the spec either  
> then.
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/01/24/WordPress-and-Atom-1-0

Actually, for some reason, the site feed and the comments feed share  
very little common code, so Sam Ruby has absolutely nothing to do  
with the comments feed. The site feed is fine. It does however appear  
to be fixed in trunk, though (I'd looked at the log of the site feed  
in SVN, assuming that you wouldn't have such code repeated, but it  
appears otherwise, meaning there are two places to have bugs, not one).


- Geoffrey Sneddon