On 17 Jul 2005, at 11:16 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:
Not unless the robustness principal is stupid and irrelevant.
Canonical IDs are more robust. Feeds that use them will work better
in the quick-and-dirty, "Desperate Perl Hacker" environment of the
internet.
As long as those intermediaries c
* A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 18:00]:
> I suppose the message you got was
> http://www.feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/ObscureEncoding.html ?
Err, of course not, but now I’m not sure that
http://www.feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/NonCanonicalURI.html
is new or was simply changed.
--On July 17, 2005 3:45:26 PM +0100 Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now do you see why canonical ids are stupid and irrelevant?
Not unless the robustness principal is stupid and irrelevant.
Canonical IDs are more robust. Feeds that use them will work better
in the quick-and-dirty, "Desperate
On 16 Jul 2005, at 11:27 am, Graham wrote:
Also:
"Solution: Use the canonical form, given in the warning message."
It now says:
"All newly issued ids should be in canonical form. Use the canonical
form given in the warning message for guidance."
(http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/NonCa
* Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 12:40]:
> Are you advocating changing permanent identifiers? Bad Sam.
>
> ID canonicalization was a bloody stupid idea.
Eeep. Even though I don’t think canonicalization was a stupid
idea, more careful thought was and is probably necessary about
the impact
On 15 Jul 2005, at 11:20 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
Can you be more specific?
If I plug my new Atom 1.0 feed into the validator:
http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F
Last night, it said the feed wasn't valid, but today it's saying:
"War
Graham wrote:
Why does the validator apparently fail outright when SHOULD level
requirements are ignored? This seems unnecessary in light of having a
spec where conformance levels are clearly defined.
Can you be more specific?
Perhaps this will help: FormatTests documents my intent. If yo
Why does the validator apparently fail outright when SHOULD level
requirements are ignored? This seems unnecessary in light of having a
spec where conformance levels are clearly defined.
Graham
