Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

March 18, 2006

Housecleaning

If one ever begins to forget that RSS 2.0 is a crappy, underspecified format, a controversy erupts in RSS-land to refresh one’s memory. The latest wrangle reminded me of my intention to migrate my Comment feed from RSS 2.0 to Atom 1.0, a much more robust alternative.

For the time being, the old RSS 2.0 Comment feed will remain in place, but I recommend people migrate to the new one.

Since I was in the process of housecleaning, I decided to hack away at some of the other less-useful feeds hereabout. As I warned 8 months ago, the Atom 0.3 feed has gone away. It now redirects to the Atom 1.0 feed. The RSS 0.9.1 feed has similarly bitten the dust. It redirects to the RSS 2.0 feed.

The same holds for the feeds at The String Coffee Table.

Update (4/4/2006):

If even Roger Cadenhead is giving up on RSS 2.0, you know it’s time to move on. Now, if only Mark Pilgrim would fulfil his promise to recommence blogging
Posted by distler at March 18, 2006 4:45 PM

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/771

4 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Housecleaning

I’m curious.. why is your Atom feed using dc:subject instead of the atom:category element for categorization?

Posted by: James Snell on April 4, 2006 1:27 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

category

why is your Atom feed using dc:subject instead of the atom:category element for categorization?

A fine question. My recollection is that I decided against atom:category because I thought the scheme attribute was required. Either I misread the draft Spec, or the requirement was eliminated.

Either way, it’s fixed now.

Posted by: Jacques Distler on April 4, 2006 1:58 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: category

Cool, looks good.

Posted by: James Snell on April 8, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Mark, blogging!

Mark seems to have resumed blogging!
http://diveintomark.org/

Posted by: Srijith on April 10, 2006 9:50 AM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Post a New Comment