Brian Kelly: I was, though, also very shocked that a validator for such a widely deployed standard (RSS 1.0) had such bugs
Not all RSS 1.0 modules, however, are equally well deployed
Brian Kelly: I was, though, also very shocked that a validator for such a widely deployed standard (RSS 1.0) had such bugs
There is no question that RSS 1.0 is widely deployed. RSS 1.0 has a minimal core. The validation for that core is pretty solid.
Not all RSS 1.0 modules, however, are equally well deployed (or particularly well defined, for that matter). I can’t honestly say that there aren’t bugs in lesser used extensions, in fact, I’m positively sure that there are.
The only thing I can say is: test cases welcome. For example: here is the one and only testcase at the moment for the taxonomy module.
I wish I’d left better documentation when I was roughing them in: I know that there are a few which are absolutely unusable, because they mandate invalid RDF, and several more like mod_taxo which may or may not be usable, but had problematic documentation, along with the special joy of mod_link with its single wide deployment of something that’s completely contrary to the published spec.
I want to say that I expected we’d get bug reports, and clean them up as a result, but I wouldn’t have been that naive in 2005, would I?