It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors. But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder
--On February 15, 2006 4:25:35 PM -0800 James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I personally think that the feedvalidator is being too anal about > updated handling. Entries with the same atom:id value MUST have > different updated values, but the spec says nothing about entries with > different atom:id's. > > - James > > James Yenne wrote: >> I'm using the feedvalidtor.org to validate a feed with entries >> containing atom:updated that may have the same datetime, although >> different atom:id. The validator complains that two entries cannot have >> the same value for atom:updated. I generate these feeds and the >> generator uses the current datetime, which may be exactly the same. I >> don't understand why the validator should care about these >> updated values from different entries per atom:id - these are totally >> unrelated entries. Is the validator wrong? It seems that otherwise I >> have to play tricks to make these entries have different updated within >> the feed. >> >> I'm not sure how this relates to the thread "More on atom:id handling" >> >> Thanks, >> James > > -- Walter Underwood Principal Software Architect, Autonomy
