Comments on: Have RSS Feed Standards Changed?

By: McD

McD — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:22:29 +0000

"Have RSS Feed Standards Changed?" No. But the validator is suggesting additional "Best practices" that we're NOT being suggested/flagged before. As with all change you can have many reactions: denial resistance investigation acceptance endorsement You seem to be resisting the change by pointing the spec. The flood of people who actually give a hoot is surprizingly small and they have "skin in the game". Of course the validator is coded and supported by Sam Ruby. 'nuff said. It's still a good idea to try to move RSS forward with "best practices" to make the technology more effective. Choose your fights carefully.

By: Jochen

Jochen — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:05:28 +0000

Check out the doc: http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/MissingAtomSelfLink.html

By: Roger Benningfield

Roger Benningfield — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:57:06 +0000

Feed validator warnings aren’t errors. In fact, the warning message specifically states that your feed is valid… it’s just missing a couple fundamental things that will make the feed more usable.

There is also a “[help]” link next to each warning. Clicking it will take you to a page explaining how to update your feed.

By: Dave Winer

Dave Winer — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:56:02 +0000

I'm getting the same warnings on my feed. http://tinyurl.com/yr4gmb Note that it says that my feed is valid, even though it's marked it up in alarming colors. Net-net: I don't think what they're doing is cool, they should stick to the spec when it comes to validating.

By: Dave Winer

Dave Winer — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:53:11 +0000

I'm getting the same warnings on my feed. http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007352.html I don't know what's going on there, looks like someone is trying to get you to change how your feed works. Note that it says that my feed is valid, even though it's marked it up in alarming colors. Net-net: I don't think what they're doing is cool, and they should stick to the spec when it comes to validating. They are crossing a line that a validator shouldn't.