Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Then I am clearly confused.
At the moment, the feedvalidator would mark an atom feed as invalid if it were served with the text/plan, application/rss+xml, or application/rdf+xml media types. It accepts as valid text/xml (if the feed is either ASCII or a charset is explictly defined), application/xml, or application/atom+xml.
Given this, how should the feedvalidator change (if at all)? How should the spec change (if at all)?
Take a look at this in a browser that does xsl transformations: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreeformGoodness
That feed happens to be Atom, but the service lets you target RSS1.0 and RSS2 as well. A large part of that feed's content comes from this feed: http://www.freeke.org/ffg/index.atom, which is served with the Atom media type.
IMHO, the spec and feed validator shouldn't conflate validity with media types, but I understand it's useful as shorthand for less technical people. So, no change to the spec is necessary. I understand you are looking for the spec to guide the validators behavior, but I don't think it should.
I am still confused.
Transforming an Atom feed into another format does not result in a valid Atom feed.
If I am conflating validity with media types, then so is the XML specification.
If the validator does not look to the spec for guidance, where should it look?
If somebody can answer my questions, I would appreciate it..
- Sam Ruby
