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 th
* 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 prob
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. Entrie
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
--On February 15, 2006 4:07:35 PM -0800 James Yenne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 v
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
