I've been sitting back and consuming all the information I can and
thinking about this whole thing.

I think it's all a bunch of crap.

However, I think it's a good idea to have liberal parsers.

Sound like I'm confused? Not really. I'm leaning towards what Joe
has discussed before, about allowing the data to be parsed, but alert
the user. I have an idea.

The real debate is that if we allow bad feeds through, why would
anyone take the time to fix them... but if we don't let them through
then the user can't read them at all, even if there is useful data.

So I propose a compromise. We let the data through if it's not well
formed. But we alert the user, and send email notifications to the
webmaster/editor fields in the RDF file. That's what they're there
for right? I can pretty much guarantee that if a website has 500
readers, and the feed is broken, and they get 500 emails saying that
there's a problem... they'll fix it.

It seems like a very obvious solution, and maybe I'm missing
something.

I'm sure someone is going to complain that it seems like a mean thing
to do, but I think that it seems like the very obvious choice.

So that's my opinion.

--
Eric Vitiello [Perceive Designs]
<http://www.perceive.net>
Got Geek? <http://www.cafepress.com/got_ge