It’s just data

Validating the Validators

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?

Posted by Phil Ringnalda at

Honk. Snort. Pass.

Posted by Mark at

Nothing is perfect (and that is why we have QA)

Brian Kelly, of UK Web Focus, gives his thoughts about bugs in validators, in an article entitled Validators Don’t Always Work. I was very impressed with the speed with which this problem was addressed and a solution deployed. [...] I......

Excerpt from QA Weblog at

RSS Validator in the Spotlight

Sam Ruby responds to Brian Kelly’s post about the RSS Validator and its treatment of RSS 1.0, or rather, RSS 1.0 modules. As Ruby notes: "There is no question that RSS 1.0 is widely deployed. RSS 1.0 has a minimal......

Excerpt from CrossTech at

Blogs or Email for Discussions?

I recently sent an email about a bug in the Feed Validator software hosted at W3C. The bug was quickly identified. This was great, but made me think about the QA process for the software and the faith which is placed on validators - issues which I...

Excerpt from UK Web Focus at

I agree with Olivier Théreaux in that Validators are extremely important tools for the adoption of technologies, and it is perfectly normal to be concerned about their quality. This is why finding bugs is good news, and the best use of one’s energy is not to worry about them, but to help find them, report them, patch them and build regression test cases for them.

Posted by Alice Pretchet at

I think that there will always be a better way for instance I would like to see video documentation for the Validators one day so when something is not valid a video tutorial shows you not just the problem but also how to fix it.

Posted by Ellen Burgess at

Add your comment