« Introducing WatirMaker - Recording for R... | Main | DasBlog 1.8 RC1 »

[Valid Atom 1.0]

After a small bit of work today, DasBlog 1.8 will (does) produce valid Atom 1.0 feeds. This is response to the bakededness of Atom 1.0 and Sam's desire to deprecate 0.3. DasBlog won't produce Atom 0.3 anymore (it was always marked under "experimental' anyway) so when you upgrade to 1.8 your Atom feed will upgrade automatically.

We do, as always, produce valid RSS 2.0 and now Atom 1.0. Here's a list of known Atom 1.0 consumers if you care.

Tracked by:
"Getting ATOM" (Paul Mooney) [Trackback]


Thursday, July 28, 2005 1:30:41 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi Scott the link goes out to an linux server (case sensitiv K,A,C):

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/KnownAtomConsumers

Daniel
Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:47:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
> was always marked under "experimental' anyway

Still is?
Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:08:29 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
When will 1.8 be complete? I'm champing at the bit. As always, thanks for your effort.
Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:25:59 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Good point Sam. I've moved it and put in a 301 Moved so the permalink isn't invalid.
Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:01:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Now if only dasBlog produced valid HTML as well... :)
Friday, July 29, 2005 10:36:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
DasBlog 1.8RC0
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=127624
Scott Hanselman
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:49:28 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Ironically, your atom 1.0 feed does not validate, and this is the entry that's breaking validation:

line 253, column 2: Missing textual content

http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hanselman.com%2Fblog%2FSyndicationService.asmx%2FGetAtom

I believe this was a problem with DasBlog's Atom 0.3 support, I noticed that periodically, I'd get your posts without any content.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:53:27 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Gordon, that is (was) weird. I've fixed it and checked in a change that should handle the case where XHTML isn't cool and instead include a content type="html" chunk.
Comments are closed.

Contact

Sponsors

Hosting By

Hot Topics

Tags

Calendar

<November 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345

Archives

November, 2009 (5)
October, 2009 (19)
September, 2009 (11)
August, 2009 (12)
July, 2009 (21)
June, 2009 (26)
May, 2009 (16)
April, 2009 (13)
March, 2009 (17)
February, 2009 (17)
January, 2009 (18)
December, 2008 (32)
November, 2008 (17)
October, 2008 (22)
September, 2008 (16)
August, 2008 (14)
July, 2008 (25)
June, 2008 (19)
May, 2008 (17)
April, 2008 (17)
March, 2008 (26)
February, 2008 (21)
January, 2008 (28)
December, 2007 (19)
November, 2007 (17)
October, 2007 (31)
September, 2007 (39)
August, 2007 (37)
July, 2007 (43)
June, 2007 (37)
May, 2007 (32)
April, 2007 (38)
March, 2007 (29)
February, 2007 (46)
January, 2007 (31)
December, 2006 (27)
November, 2006 (31)
October, 2006 (32)
September, 2006 (39)
August, 2006 (34)
July, 2006 (40)
June, 2006 (18)
May, 2006 (31)
April, 2006 (34)
March, 2006 (30)
February, 2006 (38)
January, 2006 (44)
December, 2005 (19)
November, 2005 (34)
October, 2005 (24)
September, 2005 (37)
August, 2005 (20)
July, 2005 (24)
June, 2005 (33)
May, 2005 (16)
April, 2005 (22)
March, 2005 (34)
February, 2005 (15)
January, 2005 (37)
December, 2004 (28)
November, 2004 (30)
October, 2004 (34)
September, 2004 (22)
August, 2004 (34)
July, 2004 (18)
June, 2004 (64)
May, 2004 (49)
April, 2004 (21)
March, 2004 (29)
February, 2004 (29)
January, 2004 (36)
December, 2003 (25)
November, 2003 (24)
October, 2003 (59)
September, 2003 (42)
August, 2003 (24)
July, 2003 (44)
June, 2003 (29)
May, 2003 (21)
April, 2003 (30)
March, 2003 (27)
February, 2003 (47)
January, 2003 (50)
December, 2002 (31)
November, 2002 (38)
October, 2002 (44)
September, 2002 (15)
May, 2002 (2)
April, 2002 (4)

Google Ads