It didn't take long for the RSS profile to brew up some controversy in the RSS community. FeedValidator.org is now issuing some warnings where the RSS profile is providing additional guidance. Todd Cochrane, in his usual demeanor, wrote a deceptive blog entry saying that the validator was now issuing ERRORs. Dave Winer jumped on the bandwagon. Clearly it's not issuing errors, but rather warnings. And it is also being very clear that the feeds are valid, even with the new warnings. Sam Ruby asked for some interpretations on how he should implement the profile recommendations in his validator. I hoped at first to ignore Sam, but I've received a few inquiries about my response. I will eventually respond, but I've been busy. It's great that we're talking, but don't be fooled by the deceptive politics from these three. We've been there before. We survived. Change is disruptive.
https://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007352.html
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/10/19/validatingTheValidator.html
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2007/10/08/RSS-Profile-Up-For-Vote
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2007/10/08/rssprofile-feedvalidator-requirements.html
Rogers Cadenhead
- Sam Ruby
Sam,
Blah blah. We've been here before.
Randy
All
While I made a mistake and said errors versus warning it still looks like their is a problem with the feed. This causes a lot of confusion amongst people that have had feeds that have been "warning free" for a long time.
I really do not understand why you all have to go and mess with the specification. You need to rename the feed validator to the Sam Ruby RSS Feed Validator so people can remove it as a official source for valid RSS 2.0 feed Validations.
Todd
Rogers
magic bullet
magic bullet