Validator error - incorrect information in warning

Hello.  Just wanted to alert the creators to an error in
the
validator.

I just created an RSS stream using the Yahoo Media RSS
elements.  The
documentation on the Yahoo site at the namespace URL page
explicitly
says the namespace URI is "http://search.yaho
o.com/mrss" - note that
there is no training slash (which obviously isn't required
although
recommended when creating URIs).

The validator gives an warning claiming that the media URI
is usually
"http://search.yah
oo.com/mrss/" (with the trailing slash).
Incidentally, if you follow that URL it doesn't point to the
spec.

My understanding is that although it is recommended for
people
defining new XML URIs for use in RSS to include a trailing
slash,
whatever they decide defines the namespace URI and the
'user' cannot
add or remove the slash without changing the namespace
reference -
effectively indicating a different namespace.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise perhaps the
validator needs
a tweak.

Thanks for the great resource!  Would have been painful
developing an
RSS generator without it.
Cheers.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

cenji.neutra wrote:
> I just created an RSS stream using the Yahoo Media RSS
elements.  The
> documentation on the Yahoo site at the namespace URL
page explicitly
> says the namespace URI is "http://search.yaho
o.com/mrss" - note that
> there is no training slash (which obviously isn't
required although
> recommended when creating URIs).
> 
> The validator gives an warning claiming that the media
URI is usually
> "http://search.yah
oo.com/mrss/" (with the trailing slash).
> Incidentally, if you follow that URL it doesn't point
to the spec.

Please see dozens of posts in the rss-media Yahoo Group, in
particular 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-media/message/10
08 where the 
(until very recently) person in charge of the Media RSS spec
for Yahoo 
says that it should not have a trailing slash, but at some
point after 
the time that they corrected the spec to say what they
intended, it "was 
reverted" to incorrectly not have the trailing slash.

Perhaps if we still have the error message we used to have
about 
"indecipherable specification" the validator
should be using it for 
absolutely any use of Media RSS? It's hard to imagine a way
to make XML 
any more impossible to validate than to have it be
impossible to guess 
what the namespace URI should actually be.

Were someone foolish enough to ask for my advice, I'd tell
them that for 
a feed consumer, they should support both namespace URLs,
and for a feed 
producer if they are creating a feed for Yahoo's exclusive
use they 
should use whatever namespace URL Yahoo currently accepts,
while for use 
on the open web they should look for another specification
of another 
extension to RSS to do the same thing, because Media RSS is
dead and broken.

Phil Ringnalda

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Phil Ringnalda wrote:
> cenji.neutra wrote:
>> I just created an RSS stream using the Yahoo Media
RSS elements.  The
>> documentation on the Yahoo site at the namespace
URL page explicitly
>> says the namespace URI is "http://search.yaho
o.com/mrss" - note that
>> there is no training slash (which obviously isn't
required although
>> recommended when creating URIs).
>>
>> The validator gives an warning claiming that the
media URI is usually
>> "http://search.yah
oo.com/mrss/" (with the trailing slash).
>> Incidentally, if you follow that URL it doesn't
point to the spec.

The validator has been updated to provide a more specific
error message 
in this case.

Test case:

http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/ext/media
/alternate_namespace.xml

New message:

http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/MediaRssNamesp
ace.html

> Please see dozens of posts in the rss-media Yahoo
Group, in particular 
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-media/message/10
08 where the 
> (until very recently) person in charge of the Media RSS
spec for Yahoo 
> says that it should not have a trailing slash

No, he didn't.  

In any case, advice from Jeremy on this issue would be
appreciated.

- Sam Ruby

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Phil Ringnalda wrote:
>> says that it should not have a trailing slash
> 
> No, he didn't.  

How did that "not" wind up in there? Slashes are
hard, let's go shopping.

Phil Ringnalda

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[I can't seem to post this via my work email address, so
I'll do it
via web form...]

Thanks for the poke, Phil.

After having been in a semi-orphaned state for quite a while
now, I've
*finally* (meaning "just today" after many weeks
of prodding various
people) received permission to make some Media RSS related
updates.
At the top of my todo list (for Media RSS stuff at least)
are:

1. making the licensing/ownership stuff clearer (we don't
want to
"own" it)
2. moving it to a better home
3. seeing if there are outstanding changes to incorporate
that the
community already agrees on

#1 is about being more explicit and putting the Creative
Commons
language in place.

#2 is going to result in a move to developer.yahoo.com where
it's
easier to update, unless there's a third party willing to
host it and
sufficient reason to move.

#3 I'm not sure how to attack quite yet. 

In any case, I'd rather not see this be either dead or
broken.  My
hope is that when the spec moves, we can get a redirect in
place that
honors the slash and non-slash version of the current URL so
that
nobody is left hanging.

How's that sound?

Jeremy

On Sep 29, 8:19 pm, Phil Ringnalda <philringna...gmail.com> wrote:
> cenji.neutra wrote:
> > I just created an RSS stream using the Yahoo Media
RSS elements.  The
> > documentation on the Yahoo site at the namespace
URL page explicitly
> > says the namespace URI is "http://search.yaho
o.com/mrss" - note that
> > there is no training slash (which obviously isn't
required although
> > recommended when creating URIs).
>
> > The validator gives an warning claiming that the
media URI is usually
> > "http://search.yah
oo.com/mrss/" (with the trailing slash).
> > Incidentally, if you follow that URL it doesn't
point to the spec.
>
> Please see dozens of posts in the rss-media Yahoo
Group, in particularhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-media/messa
ge/1008where the
> (until very recently) person in charge of the Media RSS
spec for Yahoo
> says that it should not have a trailing slash, but at
some point after
> the time that they corrected the spec to say what they
intended, it "was
> reverted" to incorrectly not have the trailing
slash.
>
> Perhaps if we still have the error message we used to
have about
> "indecipherable specification" the validator
should be using it for
> absolutely any use of Media RSS? It's hard to imagine a
way to make XML
> any more impossible to validate than to have it be
impossible to guess
> what the namespace URI should actually be.
>
> Were someone foolish enough to ask for my advice, I'd
tell them that for
> a feed consumer, they should support both namespace
URLs, and for a feed
> producer if they are creating a feed for Yahoo's
exclusive use they
> should use whatever namespace URL Yahoo currently
accepts, while for use
> on the open web they should look for another
specification of another
> extension to RSS to do the same thing, because Media
RSS is dead and broken.
>
> Phil Ringnalda


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> 
> In any case, I'd rather not see this be either dead or
broken.  My
> hope is that when the spec moves, we can get a redirect
in place that
> honors the slash and non-slash version of the current
URL so that
> nobody is left hanging.

Just to be clear, the issue isn't about redirects, though
such things 
are definitely a nice touch.

The issue is the wording inside the spec itself.  In
particular, the 
following (and all subsequent) examples:

     The namespace for Media RSS is defined to be:
     http://search.yahoo.com/
mrss

     For example:

     <rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.
yahoo.com/mrss">

Is there or is there not supposed to be a trailing slash in
*those* lines?

- Sam Ruby

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Oct 1, 11:34 am, Sam Ruby <ru...intertwingly.net>
wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> > In any case, I'd rather not see this be either
dead or broken.  My
> > hope is that when the spec moves, we can get a
redirect in place that
> > honors the slash and non-slash version of the
current URL so that
> > nobody is left hanging.
>
> Just to be clear, the issue isn't about redirects,
though such things
> are definitely a nice touch.
>
> The issue is the wording inside the spec itself.  In
particular, the
> following (and all subsequent) examples:
>
>      The namespace for Media RSS is defined to be:
>      http://search.yahoo.com/
mrss
>
>      For example:
>
>      <rss version="2.0"
xmlns:media="http://search.
yahoo.com/mrss">
>
> Is there or is there not supposed to be a trailing
slash in *those* lines?

Right.  I get that.

At this point my inclination is to say that we should adopt
whatever
is currently in the most widespread use and recommend that
in the
spec.  If that means a minor update to the spec, we'll
finally be in a
position to do that again.

In other words, if the Validator gives that error because
the slash is
normally present (despite what the spec said), then it might
make
sense to fix the spec.  But if the Validator gives that
error because
it assumed that a slash belonged there (a very reasonable
assumption,
I might add), but the spec said otherwise and most people
followed the
spec, then it's probably best to fix the validator.

That's my simple interpretation of things.  Are there other
issues I
might not be getting?

As a side note, when the spec moves, both the slashed and
non-slashed
URLs should redirect to the new home--so at least humans
won't get
lost...

Jeremy


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
> 
> In other words, if the Validator gives that error
because the slash is
> normally present (despite what the spec said), then it
might make
> sense to fix the spec.  But if the Validator gives that
error because
> it assumed that a slash belonged there (a very
reasonable assumption,
> I might add), but the spec said otherwise and most
people followed the
> spec, then it's probably best to fix the validator.

The validator gives that error because it assumed that a
slash belonged 
there.  If it turns out that the consensus is that the slash
does not 
belong there, the validator will be fixed forthwith.

- Sam Ruby

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Oct 1, 12:14 pm, Sam Ruby <ru...intertwingly.net>
wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> > In other words, if the Validator gives that error
because the slash is
> > normally present (despite what the spec said),
then it might make
> > sense to fix the spec.  But if the Validator gives
that error because
> > it assumed that a slash belonged there (a very
reasonable assumption,
> > I might add), but the spec said otherwise and most
people followed the
> > spec, then it's probably best to fix the
validator.
>
> The validator gives that error because it assumed that
a slash belonged
> there.  If it turns out that the consensus is that the
slash does not
> belong there, the validator will be fixed forthwith.

Got it.

I suspect that "consensus" is a strong term in
this case.  It's
probably the case that the original author didn't use the
slash for
some reason or another and nobody really questioned it back
then.

It's often scary how many things have a similar
explanation... :-(

Jeremy


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

On Oct 1, 12:14 pm, Sam Ruby <ru...intertwingly.net>
wrote:
> Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
>
> > In other words, if the Validator gives that error
because the slash is
> > normally present (despite what the spec said),
then it might make
> > sense to fix the spec.  But if the Validator gives
that error because
> > it assumed that a slash belonged there (a very
reasonable assumption,
> > I might add), but the spec said otherwise and most
people followed the
> > spec, then it's probably best to fix the
validator.
>
> The validator gives that error because it assumed that
a slash belonged
> there.  If it turns out that the consensus is that the
slash does not
> belong there, the validator will be fixed forthwith.

Got it.

I suspect that "consensus" is a strong term in
this case.  It's
probably the case that the original author didn't use the
slash for
some reason or another and nobody really questioned it back
then.

It's often scary how many things have a similar
explanation... :-(

Jeremy


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "feedvalidator-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to feedvalidator-usersgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
feedvalidator-users-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/feedvalidator-users?hl=en

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---