Re: atom:updated handling
/ Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: | Bob Wyman wrote: | Phil Ringnalda wrote: | |Patches that will make that more clear are welcome. | | The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at: | http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) | | For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing | system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were | published during the course of a single day. | | Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the | same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course | of multiple days... | | It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: It would not | be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they | were published simultaneously. | As you might imagine, given the context of syndication, the Feed | Validator has the potential for being in the center of controversy. One | of the reasons why it has avoided being such is that I try to rely | directly on the wording from the spec whenever possible. | http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php#rfc.section.3.3 I think that's pretty good justification for the current text, but I'd like to say that was surprised by that message when I got it. The atom:updated dates on my essays come from the timestamp of my Subversion commit so it is reasonable sometimes to have identical atom:updated values. I would have been less confused (though I was only momentarily confused in any event) by something along the lines of what Phil suggests. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Being forced to write comments actually http://nwalsh.com/| improves code, because it is easier to | fix a crock than to explain it.--G. | Steele pgpg7M4OFdyRZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: atom:updated handling
Phil Ringnalda wrote: Patches that will make that more clear are welcome. The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at: http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were published during the course of a single day. Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course of multiple days... It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: It would not be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they were published simultaneously. bob wyman
Re: atom:updated handling
Bob Wyman wrote: Phil Ringnalda wrote: Patches that will make that more clear are welcome. The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at: http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were published during the course of a single day. Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course of multiple days... It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: It would not be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they were published simultaneously. As you might imagine, given the context of syndication, the Feed Validator has the potential for being in the center of controversy. One of the reasons why it has avoided being such is that I try to rely directly on the wording from the spec whenever possible. http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php#rfc.section.3.3 - Sam Ruby
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
