On 2 Nov 2006 15:31:05 -0800, Jake <offsky gmail.com> wrote:
> The Firefox2 implementation of this feature is built on
the idea that
> RSS feeds are not fit for human consumption. If this
is true, then why
> does Firefox display the content at all? Shouldn't it
display only a
> simple message to the effect of, "You clicked on a
feed. This is
> gobbly-gook-computer-code that is indented to be read
by Google, Yahoo
> or Bloglines." If the web browser is going to
make an assumption about
> what RSS is used for, then it should go all the way.
No, it's patently _not_ built on that idea. It's built on
the idea
that RSS-format content is not suitable for direct
presentation to
unsuspecting users, an idea which bears out virtually
universally,
even with feeds that contain references to stylesheets.
Indeed, such
stylesheets are predominantly used to say "this content
isn't meant to
be read by a human, but by a feed-reader instead"!
So we, like pretty much every feed reader that I can think
of, format
the RSS content so that the human has a (much, much,
asymptotically-approaching-100%-much) better chance of being
able to
see what sorts of things appear in the feed. And then we
ask the user
what they would like to do with it.
> The Firefox programmers are saying that web developers
who intend for
> their feeds to be read by humans are wrong and that
this practice must
> stop.
No, we're saying that they need to insert a comment or use a
namespace
or suchlike. None of this thread is about authors not being
able to
suppress the pretty-printing, really.
> While this may be technically correct, there are so
many feeds
> (feedburner, etc) that DO style it for human
consumption, that we
> cannot simply ignore it and hope that the whole
internet will change to
> suit Firefox's ideals.
And IE7's, and Safari's... The point is that the
overwhelming
majority of feeds out there _are_ improved by this
behaviour, which is
why EOMB shares it.
Feedburner and other nth-percentile cases will quickly adopt
the
suppression techniques if indeed they don't want the
browser's
feed-manipulation interface to appear. That feedburner
_hasn't_ done
so might be a good indication that even they are just fine
with us
making it easier to get their feed into the user's reader of
choice
(desktop or web).
> Just like there are zillions of invalid HTML
> pages that must still be rendered properly, RSS feeds
that are
> invalidly styled should still be rendered according to
the developers
> wishes.
I don't think you really understand this thread. The issue
isn't that
the styles are "invalid" at all -- they're
perfectly legal under the
specifications involved. And developers have a veritable
buffet of
options available to them if they should wish to suppress
our
presentation in favour of their own, which will also work
with IE7 and
Safari.
> The best of both words solution is the #4 option in the
first post.
> Obey the web developers style, but place a banner
across the top with
> the current Firefox subscription options.
We've talked in this thread already about how that's hard,
if indeed
it is what we want to do (in-browser feed handling is moving
more
towards feed-reader-like behaviour, rather than away from
it, I
think). It will become less hard in the future, possibly,
but because
you can't ship email complaints, at some point people have
to step up
and provide code. (This is _dev_-apps-firefox, after all!)
Provide an extension or patch that shows the behaviour
you're talking
about, and you'll have a much easier time making your case,
though
it's obviously no guarantee of success.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-firefox mailing list
dev-apps-firefoxlists.mozilla.org
h
ttps://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-firefox
|