View Full Version : Invalid RSS Feed

10-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Hi.I try to subscribe to the RSS feed of the offspring witch is
But i get the following error:

Validation Results for http://feeds.feedburner.com/offspring
HTTP Status Code: 302 (Found)
XML error: syntax error at line 1

I tryed to validate the feed link on http://validator.w3.org/feed/ but it dose not pass the validation.Click HERE (http://validator.w3.org/feed/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F offspring) and try it yourself.

So i cant use the feed.Can anybody fix it?

10-03-2008, 02:27 PM
It works for me, but I've added it months ago. From what I see it appears to have problems with the slashes '/' and '\'. Perhaps they should be replaced with HTML slashes.

10-09-2008, 10:47 AM
It works for me, but I've added it months ago. From what I see it appears to have problems with the slashes '/' and '\'. Perhaps they should be replaced with HTML slashes.

It looks like some extra encoding is needed in the feed. We'll get in there and take a look. Thanks for the heads up.

10-09-2008, 11:06 AM
While you're at it, could you make it so that each item links to the item on Offspring.com?

Now they all link to http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/offspring/~3/76562466/Offspring.woa. After I click one link it shows that I've visited all the of the links. Making it more difficult for me to notice new entries.

Like the latest entry 'Houston Festival Change' should link to http://www.offspring.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Offspring.woa/wa/news?newsID=763685.

Why are the feeds provided by feedburner actually? Why not something like www.offspring.com/rss.xml or .php?

10-09-2008, 11:12 AM
Feedburner is a common publisher for RSS feeds - we publish to them, they publish to the world.

It allows for great metrics and all sorts of other really cool feed features.

If you publish an RSS feed, I recommend taking a look - they're great (and free).

10-09-2008, 11:39 AM
I can see why blog users and starting web developers use it. But you know, why use another website for it when you can write it yourself? Hm.. well I just like being independent from that stuff.

Or am I missing something?

10-09-2008, 11:59 AM
We do write the feed ourselves - we generate the feed and then they re-publish it, adding the extra layers we like to splice in. We have complete control over it, it's not like we're giving up any authority. They can take our RSS input, reformat it in ATOM, RSS 0.91, etc... That's just one feature but it saves all the time involved in creating all the extra feeds and it gets us to the same place.

You might be surprised how many people use FeedBurner - certainly not just a tool for 'beginning web developers', though many hide it behind a 302 re-direct so it's not clear by looking at the page source.

As with anything in engineering and programming, the more time you spend on one thing, the less time you have to spend on something else. I'd rather put time into user features than duplicating something that works well and is robust.

We also didn't write our own Web server, database server, application server, programming languages, etc... :-)

10-09-2008, 12:19 PM
So.. what did write yourself? ;-)

The conversion to ATOM and other RSS-standards are great, I'll agree with that. And of course it saves time.

But if you spend time on writing one thing, you can save it and use it for other websites in the future. The website's I create are often 50% recycled material. I always think that if you invest time in creating a certain script, it gives you better knowledge of the way it works and what you can do with it, thus steering it in the exact direction you want it to be.

But then again, I don't work for a company that creates immensely popular websites so I have a lot more time to focus on one or two projects at a time.

10-09-2008, 12:38 PM
I recycle a lot of code etc. when I make sites, too. But what I think is the big selling point of using Feedburner instead is its interface for metrics and all that good stuff. Not only is it easier for you to see and understand, but easy to share with others who are perhaps not as well versed in the mysteries of code.

10-09-2008, 12:52 PM
I never knew you coded, Sarah! Nice, nerdy girl!

What exactly do you two mean with metrics? I didn't quite get that from the beginning.

10-09-2008, 12:57 PM
I never knew you coded, Sarah! Nice, nerdy girl!

What exactly do you two mean with metrics? I didn't quite get that from the beginning.

By metrics, I mean in-depth stats.

If you've used Google Analytics, think of something like that, but for feeds.

Since RSS is becoming so important, it's helpful to track that stuff.

10-09-2008, 01:00 PM
I never knew you coded, Sarah! Nice, nerdy girl.


And yeah, what he said about metrics.

10-09-2008, 01:00 PM
There's no real right and wrong for this stuff, every project is different with different budgets, constraints, etc...

And I do think that you should know how to do this stuff yourself before you consider outsourcing it - as you say, understanding it is important.

10-09-2008, 01:07 PM
Ok knowing stats are very handy, and fun. I've never used Google Analytics myself, might do that when I create a website for a bigger audience.

The Talking Pie
10-13-2008, 12:32 PM
Google Analytics annoys me. The opportunities that arise from using it are indeed impressive, but I find myself resorting more to my own homegrown stats panel than Google. Though that may just be because my stats are more relevant because they're bespoke... Plus 'analytics' is a long word, but you can't abbreviate it... eh.

Out of curiosity, how are the feeds generated? Are they by hand, or are they generated by the server? At the moment I have a button to poll the database and generate an up-to-date RSS feed for my work's website, but I've been toying with having index.php?page=rss send HTTP headers and generate the feed on-the-fly. It'd be so much easier and keep everything in one file, but would that put an unnecessary load on the server? I'm afraid to try in case it is and I've wasted my time.