8 messages in com.googlegroups.bloggerdevRe: [bloggerDev] Re: Problems with bl...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| ehet...@gmail.com | 18 Apr 2005 22:00 | |
| snoopdave | 21 Apr 2005 21:33 | |
| David Stewart | 22 Apr 2005 09:48 | |
| ehet...@gmail.com | 22 Apr 2005 10:23 | |
| David Stewart | 22 Apr 2005 10:47 | |
| Erik Hetzner | 22 Apr 2005 11:23 | |
| David Stewart | 22 Apr 2005 11:42 | |
| Volabulary | 28 Apr 2005 00:34 |
| Subject: | Re: [bloggerDev] Re: Problems with blogger implementation of Atom API |
|---|---|
| From: | Erik Hetzner (ehet...@gmail.com) |
| Date: | 04/22/2005 11:23:48 AM |
| List: | com.googlegroups.bloggerdev |
I see. Well, I hope I didn't offend. (Congratulations on atomizer, by the way. I'm going to have a look at the source to get an idea of what you've done.) It may have come up countless times, but I couldn't find any information about it, so I posted here. You're absolutely right, there's no reason it should stop people entirely from getting things done. But I myself certainly spent some time puzzling over it.
Best, Erik Hetzner
2005/4/22, David Stewart <dste...@winisp.net>:
I'm the people who wrote Atomizer ;-)
I'm not saying it isn't a big deal (it is). I do NOT work for blogger. This issue has come up countless times, and I'm just trying to help unblock folks.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ehet...@gmail.com [mailto:ehet...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 10:24 AM To: blog...@googlegroups.com Subject: [bloggerDev] Re: Problems with blogger implementation of Atom API
What I really wanted to do was call attention to the problem. If you are trying to write something to conform to Atom & are getting these errrors you start to wonder: am I doing something wrong? But having information about the problem in a publically accessible place allows one to see that it is not one's own fault.
You implication however that it that this is not a big deal. In the case of the id, yes, it's not that big of a deal. However, its a bigger deal, than, say, blogger silently accepting entries which fail to contain id. Blogger is rejected entries which are valid according to all versions of the spec that I can find. Of course, all the versions are in draft, but it doesn't seem likely that these parts are going to change.
The people who wrote Atomizer, if their program works with blogger, have obviously written a workaround. I do not use Atomizer; in this case I am writing in Emacs lisp. I too, have written a workaround; its not difficult. But having information like this available makes it possible for people to write implementations.
As for the UTF issue, I would really appreciate hearing from anybody having similar issues. This is a much hairier thing to deal with. It is not often that I get out a hex editor to have a look at character encodings. But I am pretty certain that I am correct here. I would love to hear anybody's workarounds, however.
Best, Erik Hetzner