Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
This Pace is not one that I plan to lie down in the road over. However, it continues to puzzle the bejeebers out of me.
The channel link element is required in every version of RSS from 0.91 to 1.0 to 2.0. And as a co-author of the feedvalidator, I have seen a lot of broken feeds where people have either inadvertently or deliberately ignored the specification, but I don't recall ever seeing one where this element was not present.
My concern is not that tools will need to be updated. My concern is that tools won't know that they need to update. How will they know that they need to update to handle a set of feeds that nobody is currently providing?
Something that WOULD attract my attention is somebody saying "here is a set of feeds that I would like to provide that I can't provide in a valid way according to any of the available RSS specifications."
- Sam Ruby
