On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:59:19AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: > The most we can do is to say that such things are invalid, and to work > with the producers to correct this.
Sounds good to me. > The majority of the existing atom 0.3 feeds are produced by a relatively > few producers. I am confident that these producers will convert over > quickly. > > I am also committed to getting the word out quickly that atom 0.3 feeds > are not to be considered valid. In particular, I plan to update the > feedvalidator to note this as a problem (first as a warning, and later I > will change this to an error). Nice. Thanks for your vigilance, Sam. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
