Thread

Without the xml_encode plugin the feed is displayed empty.

Hmm shouldn’t be. You should still be able to output the {summary} and {body} variables inside your <description> tag. Seems weird if you can’t.

I confirm : if the tags xml_encode are taken out inside <description> and </description> nothing is displayed from the feed.

As said the code in the discussed template is the original code from EE package, excepted the parameters.

Now if I use the feed available on EE site (i.e. http://expressionengine.com/feeds/rss/full/ )i get a correct displa including links.

Please consider the two follwoing points :

1/ is the EE feed using a different code of that one in the original EE package ?

2/ Can you give a copy of the code used to display the EE feed so that I can give it a try on the post ?

Hi Jim Dad,

That is an ATOM feed. An ATOM feed wil display embedded links without any changes. To get the links to display in your RSS feed you will need to either provide separate < item >s for each link (which is probably not practical for this) or replace the xml_encode plugin with a CDATA wrapper like this:

<description>
<![CDATA[
{summary}
{exp:char_limit total="1000"}
{body}
{/exp:char_limit}
]]>
</description>

Please try that and let me know if that works ok.

Cheers

Greg

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the reply.
I replaced the xml_encode plugin with the CDATA wrapper you quoted and it works right.

My question now:

As I noticed before the Atom feed template works absolutly right.

The discussion in this thread is about the template called “rss_2.0” (a copy in my test).
After the change you suggested the “rss_2.0” template is the same as the template “atom”.

So, what is the reason of creating a specific template “rss_2.0” which does not include links ?

Hi Jim Dad,

There are not the same. They are two different syndication specifications. For most purposes though they are interchangeable and most RSS readers will handle both appropriately.

Cheers

Greg

Hi Greg,

Yes I know it is not the same specification.

I was expecting to get the link in the rss template and get the same display using any of the two feed formats.

So, in the rss template in the EE package, why to exclude the links which are expected to be there? Moreover at the end of our discussion they are actually included. I don’t see really the reason / advantage.

Is there something wrong in my understanding ?

But thanks for the clarification.

Jim Dad,

I am slightly confused myself now. Are you asking why there is a difference in the template between the Atom feed and the RSS 2 feed?

Also as a resource we have those template examples available here

John Henry Donovan,

With the EE package come 2 templates called rss_2.0 and atom. The difference is the specification they refer to.
As I am not a specialist it is not my cup of coffee.
I decide to use rss_2.0 for any reason.

Of course my understanding is that using rss or atom is the same : the difference is about the specification not about the content displayed.

That is the origin of my question : atom is correctly displaying links and rss not.
Is there some reason for that in the background ?

I do not think so, if I have a look at the EE site feeds.
One is “Master rss feed” : http://expressionengine.com/feeds/rss/full/
one is “Master atom fedd”: http://expressionengine.com/feeds/atom/full/
and they dislay the same content, including links.

And the thread made the demonstration that it is possible to amend the original rss template in order to get the same display as atom (see code above). So I ask myself why it is not included in the original template.

Hope this makes it clear.

And the thread made the demonstration that it is possible to amend the original rss template in order to get the same display as atom (see code above). So I ask myself why it is not included in the original template.

EE2.x has an updated version of the RSS template. As to why the original templates don’t, I have no idea. But more importantly, are things working the way you expect them to now?

Yes and thanks to everybody.

But you can notice we could spare the time of this thread with uptodate template.

Glad to see you’re all set, Jim. Please post again as needed.