> > Yes, i see you have incorporated all the changes and *more* than that.
> > It looks to be fully complete! Thank you very much for spending your
> > time on this!
> Not _quite_ complete. There is still the issue of removing old items
> from atom feeds.
Yes and we have explicitly mentioned this.
> > Not really. Anyhow, the revision date is already part of the feed
> > content. So, to avoid redundant data we can retain as it is now.
> Many feed readers have a separate display for "Date" apart from the feed
> content. I think we should put the revision date into the actual XML
> metadata, and stop putting the date into the feed summary at all.
I guess almost all feed readers have a separate display for "Date".
Infact, couple of feed readers (ex: sage, a firefox plugin. i'm unsure
about other feed readers) render the feeds based on this date field,
irrespective of the order of the item in the XML file. So, i guess, if
we start putting the revision date in the actual XML metadata, we will
be sure the latest revision information is always displayed on top.
IMO, it will be a good thing to do.
> Oops. First, refactored the code to use append() to replace the use of
> lots of local variables.
> Then, later, I came back and refactored my code again to use string
> interpolation directly from the pipe results. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, it happens sometimes. No problem!
> The RSS generator puts new items at the *start* of the XML document.
> The new Atom generator however, puts new items at the *end* of the XML
> Does this matter?
As stated above, it seems to be depend on feed readers. Anyhow, the
following patch may address this:
def add_revision_item(self, revision):
item = self._make_atom_item(revision)
+ self.feed.insertBefore(item, self.feed.firstChild)
# FIXME: Process max_items
Received on Fri Jul 21 13:45:54 2006