Ideas for improving exofeeds #217

New issue

Closed

opened 2024-03-18 18:17:28 +00:00 by a · 1 comment

a commented

2024-03-18 18:17:28 +00:00

Owner

Copying my ideas from Matrix:

The feed is over 440KB, so maybe we should limit the number of posts in it. Based on the generator field of the feed, it looks like it's using RSSingle which does have a max_entries option (I think this is per-feed though).
@iacore's posts all have a datetime of Jan 1 1970 in the merged feed, but I think it's RSSingle's fault. It only looks at the published field, but according to the Atom spec, the updated field is mandatory while published is optional: https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/atom.html#requiredEntryElements This should be a trivial 5-line fix.

Copying my ideas from Matrix: - The feed is over 440KB, so maybe we should limit the number of posts in it. Based on the `generator` field of the feed, it looks like it's using RSSingle which does have a `max_entries` option (I think this is per-feed though). - @iacore's posts all have a datetime of Jan 1 1970 in the merged feed, but I think it's RSSingle's fault. It only looks at the `published` field, but according to the Atom spec, the `updated` field is mandatory while `published` is optional: https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/atom.html#requiredEntryElements This should be a trivial 5-line fix.