Closed (won't fix)
Project:
URL Replace Filter
Version:
6.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Code
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Feature request
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
6 May 2008 at 15:34 UTC
Updated:
24 Aug 2016 at 06:21 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
David Lesieur commentedGood point... In fact, does it make any sense to maintain the current behavior? Given the problems it can cause and that you have pointed out, I doubt anyone would want it.
Comment #2
fgmActually, I suppose that not everyone wants his content to be aggregatable (?), and emitting full absolute URLs also has a slight bandwidth and readability cost above normal site-relative URLs. So I think it makes sense to keep your default behaviour as it currently is.
Comment #3
David Lesieur commentedThen how about adding a new token such as %baseurl-absolute instead of creating a new setting? That would allow more fine-grained configuration. I also think it would give the option more visibility than having it as a setting on a separate page.
It would also be useful to explain why one would choose absolute rather than relative, perhaps a statement like: "Some content aggregators might not be able to reference elements with relative URLs".
Comment #4
fgmHere is the module patched as suggested. I also included a README change mentioning both the new token and the uninstall procedure.
The .install file for uninstall can't be included in the patch since it does not yet exist. See http://drupal.org/node/255332 for its contents.
Comment #5
David Lesieur commentedI have not tested the patch, but it looks good. I have granted you CVS access to the module, if you have tested the patch thoroughly and would like to commit it yourself. ;)
My only suggestion would be for the readme file to mention that some aggregators may have problems with relative URLs.
An aggregating site that would republish relative URLs as-is would just be a buggy one. AFAIK, Drupal's core aggregator, FeedAPI or SimpleFeed modules do not have such problems.
Thanks!
Comment #6
fgmWell, technically, the item content in RSS 0.9x and 2.0 feeds is not supposed to be an HTML fragment. Its format is just undefined, so "by the book" it is not broken : the RSS 0.91 considers the "item" content may be HTML, but does not suppose it is, with mentions like
See http://backend.userland.com/stories/rss091 and http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.html for the full RSS 0.91 and 2.0 specifications. RSS 1.0 and Atom are a different story, though.
This being said, for most practical purposes today, the item content is an encoded HTML fragment, so aggregators should probably parse links, and I reworded the README in this new patch. Do you think this is better ?
Comment #7
David Lesieur commentedThe new README looks good to me. Thanks for the change!
Thanks also for the clarification regarding RSS.
Comment #8
fgmSo do you think we can commit this ? (set RTBC if applicable).
Since there are no other pending issues, it could be an occasion to make a new release: the previous one is almost one year old.
Comment #9
fgmBumping request: we could also apply it to the new 6.x branch.
Comment #10
David Lesieur commentedI agree with the idea. Haven't set the patch to RTBC because I haven't tested it, but feel free to commit it if you have tested it thoroughly and think it is ready. Thanks!
Comment #11
fgmIt's now 8.x time, and this module is not needed on 8.x, so won't fix.