Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

commentRSS vs. commentRss

Expand Messages
  • Randy Morin
    Matt says http://photomatt.net/2006/04/15/feed-validator/ Randy
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 15, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
    • James Holderness
      I understand Matt s frustration, but the only way forward is for everyone to agree on one correct case for that element and standardize it - that s what specs
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I understand Matt's frustration, but the only way forward is for everyone to
        agree on one correct case for that element and standardize it - that's what
        specs and standards are for. I would think the obvious choice is commentRss
        since that's what the spec has always said (even if the wfw page got it
        wrong for a long time), but it could be argued that Matt's interpretation
        has become a de facto standard.

        When there's ambiguity I'm usually all for choosing de facto standards above
        literally correct but unsupported spec interpretations. However in this case
        I've yet to see anyone present any evidence that Matt's interpretation is
        more widely supported. I've certainly seen both forms being used on
        different sites and I'm not sure about aggregator support yet (haven't had a
        chance to test).

        Ideally I'd like to see the spec author and the wfw people get together and
        come up with better documentation that acknowledges both forms for the
        element, suggests one preferred choice for producers and recommends
        supporting both for consumers. Unless/until that happens, though, I don't
        think the feedvalidator has much choice about reporting commentRSS as
        invalid.

        Regards
        James

        Randy Morin wrote:
        > Matt says http://photomatt.net/2006/04/15/feed-validator/
        >
        > Randy
      • Sam Ruby
        ... I ve downgraded it to a warning, and echoed essentially the same suggestions: that Joe update his page, that producers accept both, and that consumers
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          James Holderness wrote:
          >
          > Ideally I'd like to see the spec author and the wfw people get together and
          > come up with better documentation that acknowledges both forms for the
          > element, suggests one preferred choice for producers and recommends
          > supporting both for consumers. Unless/until that happens, though, I don't
          > think the feedvalidator has much choice about reporting commentRSS as
          > invalid.

          I've downgraded it to a warning, and echoed essentially the same
          suggestions: that Joe update his page, that producers accept both, and
          that consumers produce the one preferred choice.

          As the documentation and/or defacto standards evolve, the Feed Validator
          will try to keep up (with the latter ever producing at most a warning).

          - Sam Ruby
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.