On 18 Jan 2006, at 3:06 am, James Holderness wrote:
The problem it that proving something is "quite likely to work"
says nothing about "whether it would be valid and/or safe", even
in the limited context of XHTML.
True, but sometimes people have to make decisions based on the
limited information available to them. Knowing that something is
"quite likely to work" is better than not knowing anything at all.
No it isn't.
As for validity, as far as I'm concerned that isn't even in
question. I ran the feed through the feedvalidator and it said it
was valid. Granted the feedvalidator isn't always right, but my
reading of the spec reached the same conclusion. If you think the
feedvalidator is wrong, I'd suggest you file a bug report or post
to the feedvalidator mailing list.
Oh for fuck sake. The feed validator can only check whether something
is syntactically correct. It cannot check whether it's semantically
correct (ie means what you think it means). I'm sure you know this
and are just being an asshat.
Graham
