Hi Fox,
fox wrote:>and I agree with them: if the other readers accept it, then it may not be right "de juris", but it indeed is right "de facto", and TT-RSS should consider following suit.
Yes, let's all cater to idiots who produce broken content because there seems to be a lot of them and being idiots they are unlikely to change. Excellent idea right there. Instead of raising the bar, let's lower it even further.
That's certainly one (rather radical, IMHO) way of putting it; the other way (which I prefer) is simply to try to be as interoperable as possible and so to cather to as much users as possible.
fox wrote:I can understand why google reader wannabe services cater to their deranged demographic - they have a monetization strategy involving the cattle of their users. I am interested in nothing of the sort so both people who produce broken ass XML and people who demand support for it can go fuck themselves (or each other, whatever strikes their fancy). I hope I'm making myself clear enough because my position on this issue is not going to change.
That's not only radical but also very graphical
Anyway, thanks for making yourself crystal clear on this subject. I shall not insist on it further; if TT-RSS ever bothers me so much in this regard, I will just fork it and have a go at it myself (thanks for making it open source).
I should point out that IMHO It's not just about monetization: it's about making the software as useful as possible for as much people as possible. And people sometimes want to access content that's residing in servers that are returning less-than-ideal XML... telling them to go fsck themselves does not solve the issue.
On a side note, if you really don't care about monetization, perhaps you should consider taking out the "donate" button
on the TT-RSS Wiki and also
quit the flattr thing, saying that you are not interested in monetization and at the same time having these solicitations up might sound hypocritical (and bi, telling everyone who might think it hypocritical to go fsck themselves up or each other along with the "people who produce broken ass XML and the people who demand support for it" also won't solve it).
fox wrote:[...]
>About libXML and other RSS Reader software: can you cite another RSS Reader software which has the same issues with these XML mistakes as TT-RSS? If not, do you agree that they are probably fixing the XML before feeding it to LibXML? That's exactly what I'm suggesting that TT-RSS should do, too.
fox wrote:If you had spent a few minutes searching this forum instead of posting essays on the subject of what tt-rss should do, you would have discovered several ways of doing just so which fit within the overall framework provided by the application.
Then again, that would require intelligence someone blindly assuming invariably broken XML as a de-facto standard would probably lack.
Do you really have to go at it "ad hominen"? it weakens your whole argument, and moreover it's patently false: please notice that
the first thing I posted in this thread was a reference to another thread here on the forum (which I found by yes, searching) where a partial solution was offered, and also posted my go at making it more comprehensive... so I'm clearly not only "posting essays on the subject"...
OTOH, perhaps I was not able to locate other solutions that could have bee posted here for dealing with these issues that you refuse to code into TT-RSS; if you could be so kind as to post links to them instead of trying to offend me (no, I'm not offended, at least not yet), it would be much more productive not only for both of us but also for the other poor folks who could search for a way to fix this kind of issue in the future... and telling me to go fsck myself won't help anyone either.
Cheers,
--
Durval.
