Validating the RSS Profile - The RSS Blog
RSS, OPML and the XML platform.
 
Copyright 2012 World Readable
The RSS Blog
<< Previous Main Next >>
Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:40:39 GMT
Validating the RSS Profile

It didn't take long for the RSS profile to brew up some controversy in the RSS community. FeedValidator.org is now issuing some warnings where the RSS profile is providing additional guidance. Todd Cochrane, in his usual demeanor, wrote a deceptive blog entry saying that the validator was now issuing ERRORs. Dave Winer jumped on the bandwagon. Clearly it's not issuing errors, but rather warnings. And it is also being very clear that the feeds are valid, even with the new warnings. Sam Ruby asked for some interpretations on how he should implement the profile recommendations in his validator. I hoped at first to ignore Sam, but I've received a few inquiries about my response. I will eventually respond, but I've been busy. It's great that we're talking, but don't be fooled by the deceptive politics from these three. We've been there before. We survived. Change is disruptive.

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007352.html
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/10/19/validatingTheValidator.html
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/10/08/RSS-Profile-Up-For-Vote
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2007/10/08/rssprofile-feedvalidator-requirements.html

Reader Comments Subscribe
I'm happy about Sam's decision to add 11 checks to the Feed Validator based on the profile's recommendations. The pushback we're getting to things like atom:link has been easy to address with the developers affected -- I've helped two of them add support and am eager to help more.

Rogers Cadenhead
Randy, I encourage you to review both the test cases and the messages produced.  I won't claim that these changes are perfect, but I will do my best to be responsive.  That includes being responsive to changes in the profile, and I would even be responsive to any request by the board to back out any or all of these changes.

- Sam Ruby

Sam,
Blah blah. We've been here before.

Randy

All

While I made a mistake and said errors versus warning it still looks like their is a problem with the feed. This causes a lot of confusion amongst people that have had feeds that have been "warning free" for a long time.

I really do not understand why you all have to go and mess with the specification. You need to rename the feed validator to the Sam Ruby RSS Feed Validator so people can remove it as a official source for valid RSS 2.0 feed Validations.

Todd

Who's messing with the spec, Todd? The advisory nature of the profile is clear in the second paragraph of the document: "This profile is a set of recommendations for how to create RSS documents that work best in the wide and diverse audience of client software that supports the format. The definitions of the RSS elements in this profile are provided for convenience and must not be treated as definitive. Refer to the specification for authorititive guidance on the format."

Rogers
I'm happy about Sam's decision to add 11 checks to the Feed Validator based on the profile's recommendations. The pushback we're getting to things like atom:link has been easy to address with the developers affected -- I've helped two of them add support and am eager to help more.
magic bullet
I'm happy about Sam's decision to add 11 checks to the Feed Validator based on the profile's recommendations. The pushback we're getting to things like atom:link has been easy to address with the developers affected
magic bullet
Type "339":
Top Articles
  1. Unblock MySpace
  2. MySpace
  3. FaceParty, the British MySpace
  4. del.icio.us and sex.com
  5. Blocking Facebook and MySpace
  1. Review of RSS Readers
  2. MySpace Layouts
  3. RSS Stock Ticker
  4. RSS Gets an Enema
  5. Google Reader rejects del.icio.us