Getting JSON Feed in Jekyll

With regard to the previous post, here’s how I cooked up a Jekyll template for JSON Feed:

layout: null
  "version" : "",
  "title" : "{{ site.title }}",
  "home_page_url" : "{{ site.url }}",
  "feed_url" : "{{ "/feed.json" | prepend: site.baseurl | prepend: site.url }}",
  "author" : {
    "url" : "",
    "name" : "Fredrik Frodlund"
  "icon" : "{{ "/apple-touch-icon.png" | prepend: site.baseurl | prepend: site.url }}",
  "favicon" : "{{ "/favicon-32x32.png" | prepend: site.baseurl | prepend: site.url }}",
  "items" : [
  {% for post in site.posts limit:10 %}
      "title" : {{ post.title | jsonify }},
      "date_published" : "{{ | date_to_rfc822 }}",
      "id" : "{{ post.url | prepend: site.baseurl | prepend: site.url }}",
      "url" : "{{ post.url | prepend: site.baseurl | prepend: site.url }}",
      {% if post.external-link %}
      "external_url" : "{{ post.external-link }}",
      {% endif %}
      "author" : {
        "name" : "Fredrik Frodlund"
      "content_html": {{ post.content | jsonify }}
    }{% if forloop.last == false %},{% endif %}
  {% endfor %}

It’s a pretty quick and dirty port of my feed.xml template, but it seems to work. You can get the above code snippet directly on Github as well, but the syntax highlighter doesn’t like the YAML front matter and Liquid template tags too much, so it looks a bit ugly.

Update (2017-05-19): I’ve updated the code snippet a bit with more Jekyll tags for a more dynamic solution (like site.url and so on). Liquid template offers a great filter called jsonify that I’m using wherever applicable.


Brent Simmons and Manton Reece:

We — Manton Reece and Brent Simmons — have noticed that JSON has become the developers’ choice for APIs, and that developers will often go out of their way to avoid XML. JSON is simpler to read and write, and it’s less prone to bugs.

So we developed JSON Feed, a format similar to RSS and Atom but in JSON. It reflects the lessons learned from our years of work reading and publishing feeds.

My inital reaction to this was “But, why?” Then I read the spec, which is really nicely written for us humans, and I realized that JSON really is very prominent in many tech stacks these days. So, why the hell not?

Just for fun, I decided to spend ten minutes to try and implement a JSON Feed of my own for (might be full of bugs). Looking around the web now, a lot of people seem excited about this new spec, so why not jump on the bandwagon early this time?

That whole “blog” thing

In the beginning of March, I blurted this out in pure frustration on Twitter:

Then, a few weeks later, a gentleman named Paul Lloyd tweeted:

Great minds think alike, yes? 😉 Jeremy Keith shared our view as well. I think this is great for many reasons. For my own part, I created this blog (or journal as I so “hipstery” chose to call it) just to have something fun to tinker with all the time. Plus, I really wanted to get in on this whole static site generator craze everyone was talking about. As a side bonus I got to learn and refresh a whole slew of skills, like setting up and securing a server on Digital Ocean, making build scripts that trigger when I push to Git and more. It’s plenty of fun and it allows me to play with things that I don’t always necessarily get to do at work.

There’s more to it, though. Someone once said that owning your content is a pretty good thing. I’m sad to say that I can’t remember who said it, but it’s a good thing nevertheless. I honestly can’t understand why some great authors chose to publish on Medium, but to each his own, I guess. Reading stuff on Medium is fine, I suppose. Still, their highlighting feature is really weird and distracting.

In any case, my initial tweet on the matter was borne out of frustration. I was frustrated that people that had great and interesting things to say chose to chop it up in 140 character bits and streamed it intermixed with other people more or less useful thoughts. Threading on Twitter is horribly broken at times and if you instead chose to publish your thoughts on something more user friendly than a Twitter thread (and hey, you can always tweet about that post afterwards), then I salute and thank you!

Keep posting great stuff, I will keep reading it and share it with others.

No more prefixing

As I was tinkering with the code for this site, as one does on a Sunday afternoon, I came to realise that I hadn’t done some proper, old-school browser testing in Internet Explorer for a while. I had been doing a lot of refactoring in my gulpfile.js and exchanged some packages for others, most notably the package for minifying my CSS. I had been using gulp-cssnano for quite a while without giving it any thought (I can’t even remember which package I had use prior to that one).

Opening the site up in Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 revealed that a few things like font declarations didn’t work at all and after some debugging it turned out that cssnano was indeed the culprit. I didn’t delve too deeply into the cause of the issue, but instead ended up switching to gulp-clean-css, since it did the same thing without breaking IE compatibility. Good enough!

While debugging in IE, something else did catch my eye, though. Man, there sure is a lot of prefixed properties in here! Most of them was for flexbox, which I’m only using on a few places like the footer and the main layout to get a sticky footer on pages with less content. Dropping these would mean that IE 10, to name one, would not get the same slick layout (well, slick-ish, you know…) as modern browsers. And you know what? That’s just fine. The upside was that I got to trim away a few packages in my node_modules folder, not to mention that I got to delete a few extra lines in my gulpfile.js. That felt really good!

I did some checking and since I use display: inline-block; on elements that normally would be flex-items in supporting browsers to at least get them to appear next to each other, things looked pretty ok. Nothing looked too broken and all the content was fully accessible.

So what am I getting at with all this rambling, then? Well, most vendor prefixes are on their way out the door and to my knowledge, new prefixes are not coming in anymore. If we just apply some progressive enhancement thinking to our CSS as well, we can cut down on complexity in our tool stacks (and you know that’s normally not a thing these days!), plus we’re also cutting down on the amount of code our users are downloading.

Almost all major browsers are evergreen today and feature support is rapidly progressing across the board. Vendor prefixes was an unfortunate hiccup along the way, that got picked up by developers and misused. It’s time we left that stuff behind us.

On browser support for evergreen websites

“Pixel perfect” meant “this website looks like this graphic”. Designers reacted in horror that users might increase their text size. Browser compatibility ranged from “Best Viewed in Internet Explorer” badges to the development of two separate sites, one for each browser in order to ensure the same design was shown to each.

I remember those days back in the 90s and early 2000s. While it was fun to tackle such challenges, I still shudder thinking back knowing what I know now.

We don’t have 99% browser support for border-radius, or for pretty much anything introduced in the last few years. If you think you need 99% support to use any CSS you probably had best stop using CSS altogether.

So true. Applying progressive enhancement in all your work makes your job a lot easier in the end. The challenge is selling the idea to your client. In my experience, transparency is key. Be open with how you communicate your ideas and what benefits it will offer. Telling them that a majority of their users will receive the high-end experience, but at the same time a wider audience can be reached, helps a lot.