Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter Keane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-08 05:30]:
But the spec says it "assigns no meaning to the content" and
the RNC seems to allow it.
If the validator went strictly by the spec (the RNC is informal
anyway) then it couldn’t flag many obvious errors because of
Atom’s mustIgnore nature. Typos like `<caetgory>` would have to
be considered valid, f.ex., even though nothing will process such
a feed correctly.
File a bug with the feedvalidator maintainer - text element content is
allowed as a child of atom:category.
This is a separate matter as to whether element content is what you
want/need.
Bill
