I’m starting to think about writing a validator for the W3C’s feed validator. A validator-validator. I’d submit my feed to it via a web service (not sure if they have an API), and if that feed doesn’t validate with the W3C validator, and we believe it is valid per the RSS 2.0 spec, we would open an issue on their repo. Maybe if they want to be really cooperative, they could run the test feeds against their validator whenever they make an update as part of the validation process, and never release a version where those feeds didn’t validate. This would allay my concern about them breaking RSS because they don’t respect or understand the RSS 2.0 roadmap. I’d start with the Scripting News RSS feed, which does validate at this time. BTW, their warnings are bogus imho. They should recognize the Source namespace not warn me about it. A copyright statement can and should be able to have a © character. Why not? The spec doesn’t prohibit it, and it’s part of the language we use for copyright. And this is not an Atom feed so that warning about Atom was a bad move. The authors of the original validator were promoting Atom at the expense of RSS. Why not put that to bed, it’s not exactly an ethical thing for a validator to do imho. #