PHP.NET's RSS Feed and Firefox
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:48 pm
Is it just me, or did PHP.NET's RSS feed stop parsing correctly in Firefox 1.5? (actually, I think this has been going on for a while)
A community of PHP developers offering assistance, advice, discussion, and friendship.
http://forums.devnetwork.net/
Its not Firefox. The feed is no longer valid:Ambush Commander wrote:Is it just me, or did PHP.NET's RSS feed stop parsing correctly in Firefox 1.5? (actually, I think this has been going on for a while)
You may be right on it being a fault, but not on the reasoning.AKA Panama Jack wrote:The RDF:About flag is wrong in this case as it is interpreting the <item rdf:about= ...> improperly in the context it is being used. The other error is another mistake by the feed validator. It is interpreting — as it it were something like because it is bracketed by an & and ; without spaces. If it was & mdash; then it would pass. It's a programming fault on the validators side.
Neither are browsers including Opera.AKA Panama Jack wrote:Online validators are not 100% perfect.
Actually, they are treating it like an entity and they shouldn't.Roja wrote:It wouldn't pass if it was & mdash; - that wouldnt be valid, as that is not a valid character entity (Check the XML entity list - there can be no spaces inside). However, it does seem to be flagging the entity incorrectly. I can only guess, based on the output, that it is because there is no *leading* space before the entity begins, and after it ends. That seems dumb.
And the second one is NOT accurate because each rdb:about is in a different item and it should NOT be flagged as a duplicate.Roja wrote:Regardless, thats only the second error. The first error (duplicating the about field) is accurate, and should cause an error in any compliant viewer.
Why shouldn't they? (&)mdash (; ) is a defined xml entity.AKA Panama Jack wrote:Actually, they are treating it like an entity and they shouldn't.
No, even in a different item, the spec says you cannot have duplicate about's.AKA Panama Jack wrote:And the second one is NOT accurate because each rdb:about is in a different item and it should NOT be flagged as a duplicate.