6 ms·
Bloggers: Read this before moving to https
- x1798DE 10y agoThis is obviously an issue, but I feel like this is a situation where you should ignore that part of the spec or at worst offer an http-only alternate version. When the spec is dangerously out of date like this, there's no reason to fetishize compliance.
- shakna 10y agoRSS 2.0 was specced in '02, if I have my dates right. The web world has changed a fair bit in 12 years. That the spec demands a protocol is hardly surprising, and I do wish that most readers out there would allow other connection protocols, but as they mostly don't, offering a part of your website over HTTP seems the only option. To mitigate: Statically generate your RSS on each change. (If you use something like Jekyll, a breeze, something like PHP, a pain in the ass). In the long run? We need RSS 3.0, as long as the big players don't compromise it or kill it, but instead adopt it.
- pvorb 10y agoSimply use Atom Syndication Format instead of RSS.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Outpox 10y agoConcerning the link changes, couldn't the author have used the "//url.com" format in order to avoid this issue in the first place?
- voyou 10y agoRSS 2.0 does actually allow HTTPS URLs[1]. The author of the blog post appears to be misreading a StackOverflow comment which is specifically about <enclosure> elements, which are the only URLs that the RSS spec restricts to HTTP. 1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#comments http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#comments