Doctor Recommended

XHTML, Movable Type and more on RSS

Actually, it's about me (like always). I didn't know that Mark Pilgrim was syndicated over at XML.com, nor did I know that he is an XHTML standards guru.

And now you're wondering what XHTML is.

Is it the X-rated version of HTML with pornographic tags? ex - [blow]Give it to me[/blow]

Is it another funky version of XML with new tags? ex - [outside]That place I never am[/outside]

Is it an old Russian proprietary SGML? ex - if: in soviet russia; then: car drives you

Believe it or not, it is none of the above.

XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4. XHTML family document types are XML based, and ultimately are designed to work in conjunction with XML-based user agents. The details of this family and its evolution are discussed in more detail in XHTMLMOD.

So what does that gobbledygook mean to you? Basically it's another well-thought out standard that enables universality in coding and browsing (like POSIX, without the POSIX). If that's not good enough for you then, here is another reason why.

Try as I might, the blog you are reading is, I am saddened to say, not XHTML 1 or 1.1 compliant. And it seems that I must put more labor not into just those two versions, but the new 2.0 waiting to be finalized. So, I now have a real excuse to not recode anything until that is released.

By default, Movable Type creates XHTML/CSS compliant pages (that's one of the reasons Mark switched from Greymatter to MT). My index.html (the 'file' that shows everything on the frontpage of the site) is actually the culprit.

If you read Mark's latest column he actually explains the main problem, which is listing all of those links on the side of my page. Basically, all I need to do is add some tags in front of the links (along with a simple header) and I'm good as gold (yes there are some other errors, but this is the Lions Share of the problem).

I actually didn't bother to see if my code was valid until I started to add all of those RSS templates. Then I looked The Raging Platypus and saw that he not only validated with XHTML 1.1 but also is Bobby Approved (meaning accessible for just about anyone that is defined as a Homo sapien).

A few loose ends I've been meaning to mention regarding Movable Type and RSS templates:

- If you are hyperlinking your text, don't forget to add the www part, as RSS 1.0 (and possibly others) require that to be valid.
- I mentioned getting the RSS 3.0 feed to work only by outputting it to a txt file (xml doesn't work). I'm pretty sure he was either joking or wanted to make a point: that it's silly to have seven different versions of what is supposed to be a single simple standard (all of them deployed in some way or another too).

Doubt me? Haha, look at his 3rd reason for moving to RSS 3.0:

HTML forbidden. No one needs HTML. Email has been just fine for years before Microsoft introduce their stupid rich HTML extensions. HTML is for those loser newbies. Any intelligent Internet user deals in plain text.

Anyways, if you want my 3.0 feed it's only available in the old skool text version. Also note, I have the Movable Type RSS templates for .90, .91, .92 (and .92 comments), .93 (which was never deployed), .94 (it was not deployed either), 1.0 (comments and excerpts), 2.0 (post + comments too), in addition to ESF and XFML.

As I said, RSS .93 and .94 were never deployed, so I'm one of maybe 10 with an active feed - and other than bragging rights, you don't need them. If you want to end up nowhere with Google try to find material on them, next to nothing (there is more light emitting from a black hole than there is information on those two combined).

Oh, and to show you the power of Google, type in "rss .91 template" and other variations thereof to see just how fast blogs can be indexed (I'm at the top of several of them).

Posted by Tim at April 18, 2003 04:28 PM | TrackBack