Clarification of valid content in description requested
- View SourceGlancing at www.scripting.com's feed I see this:
<description> <a href="http://www.microdoc-news.info/blogger/2003/06/30.html#a739">Microdoc News</a>: "You may be ignored, linked to, ranted at, but nevertheless, you can have your say on your own weblog and continue to be a member of the blogosphere." </description>There is a link in the description. From the spec it appears that only html entities are allowed:
An item may also be complete in itself, if so, the description contains the text (entity-encoded HTML is allowed)...and I guess by escaping the < and > one could say it's valid, but isn't it more correct to put that link in a link tag itself? What kind of mark-up is allowed in description?
Jeff Macdonald <jeff.macdonald@...>
- View SourceI'm producing a tool that builds a complete RSS2.0 file of ALL posts.
Currently, it doesn't add any posts that are not on the front page, that is,
a post to a category only is missing. Some want to include these, and here's
If I ignore the flNotOnHomePage = true and add it anyway, a
isPermaLink="false" is added to the GUID and a non real link added, as below
If, as I want to, change the callback getUrlCallback (adrpost, adrurl) in
publishRSS to get a real url by working out which category, then, if they've
posted to more than one category (still nothing to the front page) I'll end
up with multiple GUIDs, each valid.
What to do?