CXcxr·May 4, 2026
In Introduction to Atomw3c
feedvalidator
Python2023–2026
w3c / feedvalidator
feedvalidator
W3C-customized version of the feedvalidator (forked from https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/)
4Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
135GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
W3C-customized version of the feedvalidator (forked from https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/)
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year5 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2023-06-18 08:24:14 UTC to 2026-05-04 14:30:06 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
5 sourcesThe entire Github thread felt unpleasant to read due to (what I perceived as) the passive aggressive responses. In a way it solidifies my choice to go with ATOM for my org rather than RSS, there's too much confusion for end-implementers in this space.
https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/issues/106
In Question the W3C's advice re RSSI'll summarize my thoughts mentioned in the Github issue[1]:
> I think this comes down to who W3C considers the authority for RSS2 today.
> While from a technical standpoint [both Dave's and RSSBoard's spec] are identical, they do have some differences .... and if rssboard comes up with a new donations attribute for <item> and the Harvard site doesn't list it, which copy should W3C run their validator against?
[1] https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/issues/106
In Question the W3C's advice re RSSIt might be worth opening an issue on the repo: https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/issues
And linking to the PR where it got removed: https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/pull/68
Or if you want to really get their attention, pull a DMCA takedown.
In W3C and My RSS SpecThe validator is maintained on GitHub, so the diff is public: https://github.com/w3c/feedvalidator/pull/68
In W3C and My RSS Spec