Mark Baker wrote: > 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.
What Mark said. Now, that's the world as it might be outside the spec. There is still proposed spec text, which I suggest is amended as follows: [[[ Interoperability considerations: Some existing agents and feeds that support the Atom 0.3 specification make use of this media type despite Atom 0.3 not being compatible with Atom 1.0. Such feeds SHOULD be considered invalid Atom 1.0. ]]] cheers Bill
