Graham Parks wrote:
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.
Ok. If you like working in the dark I'm not going to try and convince you
otherwise. I've provided what information I have for anyone that might find
it helpful. If it's not helpful to you, feel free to ignore it.
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.
Take a deep breath. I'm not being deliberately obtuse here, but I haven't
the faintest idea what you are talking about anymore. I was under the
impression that you were complaining about the use of partial xhtml
fragments inside content labeled with type="application/xhtml+xml". The
feedvalidator is quite capable of checking for that and in fact it does
check for that. However it only warns you rather than reporting it as an
error because it's considered a recommendation rather than a requirement.
If that's not it, you're going to have to be a whole lot more specific about
this semantic error that the feedvalidator can't detect. Or you could
continue to assume I'm being an asshat and move on to something more
productive.
Regards
James
