has he written a book for O'Reilly. The book in question is this one:
Content Syndication with RSS
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0596003838/ref=ase_houseoffusion/104-2638861-0384716
And in Chapter 8, section 1 it states that author is an optional element that
SHOULD (not must) contain an email address. If O'Reilly is stating that its a
SHOULD and SOME of the validators do not see a lack of an email address as a bad
thing, then the issue of spec violation does not rest with me but with those who
are documenting the spec.
As there are two opinions on this, I'm inclined to take the one that does not
involve more data (i.e. the inclusion of add ons). If, as time goes on, the
documentation becomes clearer then I will change my feed. This is a problem with
the net and open standards. Either the specs are written out clearly (the
Harvard site is not the origin of the spec) or interpretation problems will
arise.
> Michael: "According to the rules...[snip] The RSS book from O'Reilly."
>
> For the sake of folks new to RSS, it's important to note that Ben's book is in
no way related to the RSS 2.0 specification. For that, you need to visit
Berkman:
>
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
>
> The world certainly won't stop turning if you produce invalid RSS, but I'd
hate to see folks new to RSS create feeds that violate the spec without a good
reason and plenty of forethought.
>
> --
> Roger Benningfield
> JournURL
> http://journurl.com/
> blog:
> http://admin.support.journurl.com/
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
