Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unable to parse OPML 1.1 #660

Open
lostsidewalk opened this issue Apr 19, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Unable to parse OPML 1.1 #660

lostsidewalk opened this issue Apr 19, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@lostsidewalk
Copy link

Hi, I have a few OPML documents exported from various RSS readers that have a version attribute value of "1.1". It looks like ROME OPML presently only supports OMPL versions 1.0 and 2.0. Attempting to parse an OPML document of any other version results in an invalid document error because no parser can be located.

This page describes the history of OPML 1.1: http://opml.org/history/aboutOpml11.opml.

It appears that a single element called 'cloud' was added to OPML to mirror a similar addition to RSS 0.92.

Interestingly, the linked OPML 1.1 announcement states: "if you're wondering what to do -- if you see an OPML 1.1 file, you should treat it like an OPML 1.0 file. That's it."

If ROME OPML doesn't care about this particular element, it might be a good idea to just change the `isMyType' condition in OMPL10Parser to accommodate this new version. Alternately, adding proper support for it wouldn't be that much of a change either. Regardless, raising this issue because I'm seeing a decent number of these documents submitted by users, and I think a minor change to add support for parsing these would be a useful addition to this project.

antoniosanct added a commit to antoniosanct/rome that referenced this issue Apr 19, 2023
Signed-off-by: Antonio Santos Izaguirre <antoniosanct@gmail.com>
@PatrickGotthard
Copy link
Member

PatrickGotthard commented Jun 21, 2023

Hi @lostsidewalk,

I will have a look at the OPML 1.1 support from @antoniosanct after we've finished the new documentation. Unfortunately this will take some time, I'm very busy at the moment.

Regards,
Patrick

@allentown521
Copy link

It's been a long time, I think the admin should merge the code

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants