DasBlog 1.8 will/does produce Atom 1.0 valid documents

July 27, 2005 8:30 PM Comments [8] Posted in DasBlog

[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]
Comments [8]
« Introducing WatirMaker - Recording for R... | Home | DasBlog 1.8 RC1 »
Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:30:41 AM UTC
Hi Scott the link goes out to an linux server (case sensitiv K,A,C):

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

Daniel
Daniel Fisher(lennybacon)
Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:47:57 PM UTC
> was always marked under "experimental' anyway

Still is?
Sam Ruby
Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:08:29 PM UTC
When will 1.8 be complete? I'm champing at the bit. As always, thanks for your effort.
Patrick
Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:25:59 PM UTC
Good point Sam. I've moved it and put in a 301 Moved so the permalink isn't invalid.
Scott Hanselman
Friday, July 29, 2005 4:01:12 AM UTC
Now if only dasBlog produced valid HTML as well... :)
Jason Mauer
Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:36:40 AM UTC
DasBlog 1.8RC0
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=127624
Scott Hanselman
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:49:28 PM UTC
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.
Gordon Weakliem
Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:53:27 PM UTC
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.
Scott Hanselman
Comments are closed.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer’s view in any way.