Re: [rss-public] rss-board feed issues
- Sam Ruby wrote:
> The second issue involves relative references in the description. TheFYI, I did a bit of testing on RSS relative references a while back to see
> RSS 2.0 spec does not specify how such references are to be resolved.
> Common strategies include resolving relative to the feed, resolving
> relative to rss/channel/link, or simply letting the browser take care of
> it. Each of these strategies will fail in this case as the reference is
> relative to the rss/channel/item/link.
how various aggregators handled the situation. Of the 15 I tested, 1 failed
completely (i.e. left the relative reference as is), 2 used the host name as
a base, 3 (myself included) used the feed uri as the base and the remaining
9 were evenly divided between using the channel link and the item link. And
before anyone points out that 9 doesn't divide evenly, I should make it
clear that one aggregator actually used both links depending on the
I've since changed to using the channel link since I suspect it has more
chance of working than most. Item links seem promising at first until you
realise that feedburner replaces all item links in a feed. Any aggregator
that uses item links is guaranteed to fail on relative references in
> At a minimum, the spec should say that the behavior of relativeAgreed.
> references is undefined and should be avoided.