Re: nnrss should borrow nnshibmun's RSS date processor...or something

[Mark Plaksin <happy@xxxxxxx>]

Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@xxxxxxx> writes:

> I think the best way at the present is yours, i.e., to make
> nnrss always provide RFC822 date.  However, I still don't know
> the reason why we should not use ISO 8601 date in nnrss
> articles.  Though we might not be getting used to seeing it in
> our eyes, I don't think that is so serious.

My original problem was that Gnus showed some RSS articles with a date of
midnight Jan 1 1970.  I found the cause to be dc:date being in ISO 8601
format.  At that point I assumed Gnus couldn't handle ISO 8601 dates at
all.  I saw that sb-rss.el handled them and thought that was a good place
to steal code from.

This feed has ISO 8601 dates: http://del.icio.us/rss/popular/  Does it give
incorrect dates for you too?

>> If Gnus switches to date-to-time, then no change will be needed in nnrss,
>> yes?
>
> It will make several date-oriented features of Gnus, e.g.,
> sorting, expiration, etc., work with ISO 8601 date.  However,
> I'm not sure whether all those features actually work and are
> actually used.  I can only say with certainty that they will
> work with RFC822 date.

Gotcha.

>> I copied shimbun-rss-process-date, changed the first line from this:
>
>> (luna-define-method shimbun-rss-process-date ((shimbun shimbun-rss) date)
>
>> to this:
>
>> (defun map-shimbun-rss-date (date)
>
>> and then patched nnrss.el with the attached patch.
>
> Thanks.  It looks good to me, and I seem to be able to rewrite
> it in nnrss.el if we cannot use the shimbun code directly.
>
>>> BTW, why do you prefer RFC822 date rather than ISO 8601 date?
>>> If it is for the bugfix, we should apply it to both the Gnus
>>> trunk and the v5-10 branch.
>
>> I don't know enough to prefer either format :)  I was just trying to find a
>> way to make nnrss show the correct date all the time.  Making nnrss able to
>> do this in both the trunk and v5-10 sounds good to me though I only use
>> trunk.
>
> Does ISO 8601 date actually cause you pain, or give you any
> trouble?  If so, we can call it a bug and we should fix it. ;-)

As mentioned above I could live with dates in any format as long as they're
correct :)  Inertia makes me prefer RFC822 format but I could adapt.  But
the main problem is getting a date of Jan 1 1970 instead of the correct
date.