Support » How-To and Troubleshooting » Does Atom work?

Does Atom work?

  • I installed version 1.0 on my Ten Thousand Year Blog I noticed the index.php file that came with 1.0 did not include the wp-rss.php (RSS 0.92) and wp-rdf.php (RSS 1.0) links as part of the Meta section, so I added them. I also saw the Atom file and tried adding it the same way, but when I try to click the link with Internet Explorer, it tries to download the file.
    Can someone explain how to use Atom with version 1.0?
    David Mattison

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • That’s how Atom works. Don’t worry about it.

    I noticed that you removed
    background-color: #fff;
    color: #000;
    from your body element in the CSS. While this is not critical, it is considered to be “good practise” to declare background and foreground (text) colours.
    I have noticed that this forum doesn’t have a colour declaration for body either. 🙂
    Just me trying to spread the CSS joy!
    Have fun with your site, David.

    I checked the Atom Wiki and tried NewzCrawler on one of the implementations. NewzCrawler picked up the Atom 0.3 feed through its RSS Autodiscovery mechanism. I added the Atom URL back to index.php in the Meta section in the same fashion as the other RSS feeds, but NewzCrawler doesn’t recognize it. Internet Explorer 6.x should display the raw XML Atom feed in the same way it does the raw RSS 0.92, 1.0 and 2.0 feeds. That’s not happening.
    In checking this situation with Netscape 7.1, I think it has to do with the MIME type atom+xml not being recognized by Internet Explorer or Netscape. I’ll check some more through the Atom Wiki, but if anyone has Atom working with version 1.0 of WordPress, please let me know.
    As for the CSS body element. I didn’t change or remove those in the style sheet that came with 0.72 or 1.0. Thanks for the tip Craig. Keep spreading that CSS joy.

    The reason it’s being download instead of displayed is the “application” in the mime type. RSS is marked as text/xml, but the ATOM is application/atom+xml. If it were text/atom+xml, IE would display it.
    The applicable RFC RFC3023 suggests that if an XML document –that is, the unprocessed, source XML document– is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to application/xml because user agents (read web browsers) that do not have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/plain, displaying the source as plain text.
    The RFC specifies that the conservative principle is to use application/xml instead of text/xml so as not to put information in front of users that they will quite likely not understand. That’s the reasoning for choosing application/xml for atom, (if you have a look, I think you’ll agree that the raw document is absolutely not readable by casual users — heck, even technically adept users would probably have a hard time with it unless they’re used to reading unfamiliar xml dialects.
    blah blah …
    P.S.: it seems to me that application/rss+xml would be more appropriate for the rss feeds …

    I love NuclearMoose, he brings CSS happiness to all!


    Thanks NuclearMoose for solving the download aspect. Now, I need to fix that!
    But, the bigger question, I’ve now discovered, is that the original wp-atom.php does not validate at all at http://www.feedvalidator.org (http://www.davidmattison.ca/wordpress/wp-atom.php). I tried to modify the wp-atom.php file by following the Atom 0.3 spec (http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-atom-format-02.html), but no matter what I tried, I produced other errors, so am giving up at this point and tossing this back to the developers.
    I did leave in one slight modification, added “encoding=”UTF-8”, as that seems to be mandatory, according to the start of this sample, minimal entry from the specs site:
    A minimal, single-entry Atom feed serialized as XML 1.0:
    <?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”utf-8″?>
    <feed version=”0.3″ xmlns=”http://purl.org/atom/ns#”>

    Yes, I see THAT feed validates, but what about my feed? Try it and you’ll see what’s wrong: http://www.davidmattison.ca/wordpress/wp-atom.php
    As I said, before I tweaked it by adding the encoding=”UTF-8″ to XML declaration, the feed wouldn’t validate.
    It’s presumably the same d*d file (except for the addition of the encoding=”UTF-8″ attribute that appears to be necessary according to the Atom 0.3 spec).
    The other issue here is that the Atom feed from http://fresh.wordpress.org (nor my site) is not being recognized by NewzCrawler’s Atom/RSS Autodiscovery mechanism. No doubt because http://fresh.wordpress.org/wp-atom.php does not appear in the Meta section or anywhere else except in the Head/Head section, which doesn’t do any good. Interestingly enough, although my RSS feeds are recognized by NewzCrawler’s autodiscovery, the ones from Matt’s site are not being recognized.
    I can add my Atom feed manually and have it parsed by NewzCrawler, but when I try to validate the feed through NewzCrawler’s built-in link to the Feed Validator, I get the same error, plus, I just discovered, this new one:
    line 5, column 30: modified must be an ISO-8601 date [help]
    There’s a caret pointing to the “Z” that I haven’t included.
    BTW, matt’s sandbox also appears to be broken today (Jan 6, 2004), as there’s a whole bunch of MySQL query statements after the credit line! 😉
    I see there’s now a note about some users having issues with release 1.0 and that a bugfix will be released. I’ll grab the latest wp-atom.php from the CVS repository and see if that makes a difference.

    Check what you say. Every 1.0 installation has the atom feed linked in the proper manner in the head, like:
    <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Atom 0.3" href="http://fresh.wordpress.org/wp-atom.php" />

    Would it be improper to link to the Atom feed from the Meta links section?

    No, that would be the right place to link it – I expect the next versions of the major aggregators will support it. The beta-list version of NetNewsWire does.

    I guess I should have clarified a little…since the head contains meta links…stupid me! Is it also ok to create a link in the body from the meta section of the menu section? This was left out in the original index.php as was RDF I believe. I’ve added these to my customized page, but should they not be links in the body?

    The reason they were removed from the main template was to make it a little easier on your site’s visitors. Many people don’t know what RSS/RDF/Atom are (or the little XML icons you see on some sites) and having 4 links there that all accomplish the same thing (syndication) is a bit overwhelming. RSS 2.0 is well supported (Atom is not yet) and more feature rich than RSS .91 and RDF, so it was chosen as the link to display.

    WordPress is publishing invalid date values. Notice this time value (repeated from an earlier post):
    The hour is shown with a single zero: “0:13:15Z”. According to Atom and W3C, it must read: “00:13:15Z”.

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • The topic ‘Does Atom work?’ is closed to new replies.