<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New RSS Sheriff Coming to Town</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johnsjottings.com/archives/2003/05/09/new_rss_sheriff_coming_to_town.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johnsjottings.com/archives/2003/05/09/new_rss_sheriff_coming_to_town.html</link>
	<description>Technology, Blogging, Food, Travel, Poker and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:45:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Marjolein Katsma</title>
		<link>http://www.johnsjottings.com/archives/2003/05/09/new_rss_sheriff_coming_to_town.html/comment-page-1#comment-554</link>
		<dc:creator>Marjolein Katsma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2003 10:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johnsjottings.com/wp/?p=144#comment-554</guid>
		<description>The major problem (as far as I&#039;m concerned) with FeedDemon is that it will not be an RSS reader but a tagsoup reader.

Never mind if a feed is even well-formed XML or not (let alone whether it validates as the flavor of RSS it proclaims to be).

And there WON&#039;T be an option for validation either, because Nick has gone so far as to write his own parser that just doesn&#039;t care whether something is XML in the first place.

I think this is actually *harmful*. XML is different from HTML, and for something to be XML the least it has to be is well-formed. If your RSS reader ignores this (even as an option) how would you ever find out whether a feed is valid?

With SharpReader I do find out (and Luke has promised validation will at least remain as an option); when a feed isn&#039;t valid, I inform those responsible for the feed. And it works. And think about this: most feeds are generated by a program - so if the error is caused by that program and it gets fixed, not just that one feed will get fixed but a whole number of them. We end up with *less* tagsoup.

If you would use a tagsoup reader like FeedDemon instead, all we&#039;ll end up with is *more* tagsoup, not less. Like I said, harmful.

I won&#039;t be even downloading the beta.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The major problem (as far as I&#8217;m concerned) with FeedDemon is that it will not be an RSS reader but a tagsoup reader.</p>
<p>Never mind if a feed is even well-formed XML or not (let alone whether it validates as the flavor of RSS it proclaims to be).</p>
<p>And there WON&#8217;T be an option for validation either, because Nick has gone so far as to write his own parser that just doesn&#8217;t care whether something is XML in the first place.</p>
<p>I think this is actually *harmful*. XML is different from HTML, and for something to be XML the least it has to be is well-formed. If your RSS reader ignores this (even as an option) how would you ever find out whether a feed is valid?</p>
<p>With SharpReader I do find out (and Luke has promised validation will at least remain as an option); when a feed isn&#8217;t valid, I inform those responsible for the feed. And it works. And think about this: most feeds are generated by a program &#8211; so if the error is caused by that program and it gets fixed, not just that one feed will get fixed but a whole number of them. We end up with *less* tagsoup.</p>
<p>If you would use a tagsoup reader like FeedDemon instead, all we&#8217;ll end up with is *more* tagsoup, not less. Like I said, harmful.</p>
<p>I won&#8217;t be even downloading the beta.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

