Re: RSS 1.0: problems with feed, validator, CPAN module or specification?

Hello Brian, Hi all.

On Feb 7, 2007, at 19:15 , Brian Kelly wrote:
>    However as validators are of such importance to W3C and as the  
> QA group
> has an interest in the QA processes for ensuring standards and (I  
> assume)
> related applications such as validators, I think it would be useful to
> identify what went wrong in this case

What do *you* think went wrong? I'm thinking everything went rather  
well: a small bug in the implementation of a slightly faulty  
specification was found, reported, fixed, and added to a regression  
test suite. Hopefully the small problems in the spec will also get  
fixed soon.

> note a colleague who is a software developer felt that most
> developers wouldn't have such a faith in validators as I do - but  
> if you
> can't trust the validators, what's the point of validation?

Maybe faith is better left for ideas, religions and such immaterial  
things. Validators are useful tools, but still tools, worldly and  
imperfect. A bug in a dark corner of their code does not change the  
fact that validators are massively useful for people to adopt  
technologies - especially when said bug gets squashed within 24 hours  
of being reported.

> http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/validators-dont-always- 
> work/
>
> Comments welcome.

Seeing as everyone is commenting on weblogs...
http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/02/bugs_and_qa.html

Cheers,
-- 
olivier