Have RSS Feed Standards Changed?



I have used FeedValidator.org to validate my feed for several years and noticed a couple of days ago that 2 new errors were showing up. I am not sure what prompted the change. For years my feed has been ok.

But now I am seeing this error “Missing atom:link with rel=”self”” and I have no idea what it means and or how to fix it. Another error that cropped up was one that now requires and actual name to be in the contact email section.

My feed used to have this <managingEditor>geek@GeekNewsCentral.com</managingEditor> but now has to have this <managingEditor>geek@GeekNewsCentral.com (Todd Cochrane)</managingEditor> to be error free. 

I wonder if Dave Winer would like to weigh in on these new changes? Is this just those that are now the proclaimed specification managers playing around with the spec?

About geeknews

Todd Cochrane is the Founder of Geek News Central and host of the Geek News Central Podcast. He is a Podcast Hall of Fame Inductee and was one of the very first podcasters in 2004. He wrote the first book on podcasting, and did many of the early Podcast Advertising deals in the podcasting space. He does two other podcasts in addition to Geek News Central. The New Media Show and Podcast Legends.


5 thoughts on “Have RSS Feed Standards Changed?

  1. “Have RSS Feed Standards Changed?”

    No. But the validator is suggesting additional “Best practices” that we’re NOT being suggested/flagged before.

    As with all change you can have many reactions:

    denial
    resistance
    investigation
    acceptance
    endorsement

    You seem to be resisting the change by pointing the spec. The flood of people who actually give a hoot is surprizingly small and they have “skin in the game”.

    Of course the validator is coded and supported by Sam Ruby. ’nuff said. It’s still a good idea to try to move RSS forward with “best practices” to make the technology more effective. Choose your fights carefully.

  2. Feed validator warnings aren’t errors. In fact, the warning message specifically states that your feed is valid… it’s just missing a couple fundamental things that will make the feed more usable.

    There is also a “[help]” link next to each warning. Clicking it will take you to a page explaining how to update your feed.

  3. I’m getting the same warnings on my feed.

    http://tinyurl.com/yr4gmb

    Note that it says that my feed is valid, even though it’s marked it up in alarming colors.

    Net-net: I don’t think what they’re doing is cool, they should stick to the spec when it comes to validating.

  4. I’m getting the same warnings on my feed.

    https://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007352.html

    I don’t know what’s going on there, looks like someone is trying to get you to change how your feed works.

    Note that it says that my feed is valid, even though it’s marked it up in alarming colors.

    Net-net: I don’t think what they’re doing is cool, and they should stick to the spec when it comes to validating. They are crossing a line that a validator shouldn’t.

Comments are closed.