/ Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| Bob Wyman wrote:
| Phil Ringnalda wrote:
|
|Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.
|
| The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at:
| http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html)
|
| For example, it
Phil Ringnalda wrote:
Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.
The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at:
http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html)
For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing
system to apply the same
Bob Wyman wrote:
Phil Ringnalda wrote:
Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.
The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at:
http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html)
For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing
system
I personally think that the feedvalidator is being too anal about
updated handling. Entries with the same atom:id value MUST have
different updated values, but the spec says nothing about entries with
different atom:id's.
- James
James Yenne wrote:
I'm using the feedvalidtor.org to validate a
It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors.
But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder
--On February 15, 2006 4:25:35 PM -0800 James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally think that the feedvalidator is being too anal about
updated handling. Entries
* Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-16 01:40]:
It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer
errors. But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder
The validator does not say the feed is invalid. It merely throws
a warning, saying the feed is valid but may cause
On 2/15/06, Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors.
But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder
Which is why the message you are given is found at
http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html with the
