269789 - Live Bookmark remains empty with some (valid) feeds

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Firefox :: Bookmarks & History, defect)

Description

[Maxime Petazzoni]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041111 Firefox/1.0 (Debian package 1.0-2)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041111 Firefox/1.0 (Debian package 1.0-2)

In the page http://www.bulix.org/ the Rss feed is correctly recognize (the
LiveBookmark icon appears in the status bar), but after subscribing to the feed,
the LiveBookmark folder remains empty (even after forcing a refresh).

Note that the feed works perfectly with any other RSS readers (Liferea,
ThunderBird, ...), and that the feed is valid
(http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http://bulix.org/rss.php)

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to http://www.bulix.org/
2. Subscribe to the feed and put the LiveBookmark folder somewhere
3. Go to the folder, it's empty.

Actual Results:  
The folder remains empty

Expected Results:  
The folder should be filled by the feed elements.

Comment 1

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Indeed, you could use that feed with nearly every reader made with no problem at
all, which makes me wonder about the value of using RSS 1.0's RDF in a feed.

You have typo in the <items><rdf:Seq>, giving each rdf:li an rdf:reSSource.

feedvalidator.org passes it anyway, because Live Bookmarks is almost the only
reader around that actually tries to parse RSS 1.0 as RDF, and the other
one-and-a-half have massive fallback code to parse it as more-or-less RSS 0.9x,
but I'll file a bug against the feed validator anyway, to try to catch most of
what we need in the way of RDF.

Comment 2

[Maxime Petazzoni]

(In reply to comment #1)
> You have typo in the <items><rdf:Seq>, giving each rdf:li an rdf:reSSource.
> 
> feedvalidator.org passes it anyway, because Live Bookmarks is almost the only
> reader around that actually tries to parse RSS 1.0 as RDF, and the other
> one-and-a-half have massive fallback code to parse it as more-or-less RSS 0.9x,
> but I'll file a bug against the feed validator anyway, to try to catch most of
> what we need in the way of RDF.

Ok, thanks for the help, I think I'll never figured out there was a syntax typo
in my feed. Finally, Firefox is a best feed validator than feedvalidator.org :)

Comment 3

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

sorry for bugspam, long-overdue mass reassign of ancient QA contact bugs, filter on "beltznerLovesGoats" to get rid of this mass change