W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Feed Validator HTTPS enclosure URL

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 01:45:53 +0900
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20170123164553.gf3mbzzsjosqndgu@sideshowbarker.net>
Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 2017-01-23 11:15 -0500:
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b38b2d82-c6fc-2582-bdc5-78380af5a6aa@intertwingly.net>
> Related reading:
> https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/12
> https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/16
> https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/17
> https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/pull/30

Well that’s all pretty depressing.

I agree with Tim Pritlove’s comment there that “Not supporting https is
just not reality-compliant”.

> TL;DR: indeed a number of authors disagree with the spec writer on this
> topic.  If either the spec were updated, or those authors got together and
> produced a different spec, the feedvalidator would be updated.

OK, from I’ve just gleaned then this seems to deficiency is in RSS and not
in Atom. If that’s the case then it seems clear it would be fruitless to
try to get any changes made to the RSS spec. And personally as far as the
W3C Feed Validator goes, I will not put time into helping get any changes
made to its RSS support (as opposed to its Atom).

It’s not clear to me why in this decade anybody would choose to still be
publishing RSS feeds rather than Atom feeds. But if they are choosing to do
that I definitely don’t have interest in helping make it easier to do that.


Michael[tm] Smith https://sideshowbarker.net/

Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 16:46:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 January 2017 16:46:23 UTC