I understand Matt's frustration, but the only way forward is for everyone to
agree on one correct case for that element and standardize it - that's what
specs and standards are for. I would think the obvious choice is commentRss
since that's what the spec has always said (even if the wfw page got it
wrong for a long time), but it could be argued that Matt's interpretation
has become a de facto standard.

When there's ambiguity I'm usually all for choosing de facto standards above
literally correct but unsupported spec interpretations. However in this case
I've yet to see anyone present any evidence that Matt's interpretation is
more widely supported. I've certainly seen both forms being used on
different sites and I'm not sure about aggregator support yet (haven't had a
chance to test).

Ideally I'd like to see the spec author and the wfw people get together and
come up with better documentation that acknowledges both forms for the
element, suggests one preferred choice for producers and recommends
supporting both for consumers. Unless/until that happens, though, I don't
think the feedvalidator has much choice about reporting commentRSS as
invalid.

Regards
James

Randy Morin wrote:
> Matt says http://photomatt.net/2006/04/15/feed-validator/
>
> Randy