Re: atom:updated handling
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
Re: atom:updated handling
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
Re: atom:updated handling
* Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-16 01:40]: It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors. But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder The validator does not say the feed is invalid. It merely throws a warning, saying the feed is valid but may cause problems for some users. I think that’s still too much – it’s certainly not on par with other warnings for SHOULD-level requirements (f.ex., a feed missing a `rel=self` link will validate with a warning). Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: atom:updated handling
On 2/15/06, Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors. But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder Which is why the message you are given is found at http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html with the accent on the */warning/*. Patches that will make that more clear are welcome. Phil Ringnalda
