We *must* add the language attribute???? The RSS validator on that page you qoute says our RSS is valid ;) AFAIK an RSS using no modules is absolutely valid (as well as it is easier to parse it for simple regexp based parsers). 

No, it isn't necessary to include <dc:date>. However, at Syndic8.com we try to review feeds for information we think it's useful to readers & people, and including <dc:date> is one of this things.

As you say, it's easier to parse with a regex based parser, but XML *it is not text* so there's no reason why you should use a regex parser, the best thing to do is parse the data with an XML parser.

For example, a _valid_ RSS 1.0 feed may contain an item like this:

<item rdf:about='http://example.org/article1.html'>
<link>http://example.org/article1.html</link>
<title>Example Article N. 1</title>
</item>

But this *is valid* too:

<rss:item rdf:about='http://example.org/article1.html'
    xmlns:rss='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/'>
<rss:link>http://example.org/article1.html</rss:link>
<rss:title>Example Article N. 1</rss:title>
</rss:item>

And with this you regex parser won't work.

Bye!

inkel

ps: any ideas about why I can't get the password I set for this bug report?

OK, OK, I never said that those examples are not valid. You submitted a bug saying, that we "must" use the Dublin core module. As your English may not be correct, I assume now, you have not intended to say "must", but something like "would ideally".

Well, I don't really think so, that we "need to bloat" the RSS file with "too much" meta information. What the other guys think about this?

No feedback was provided for this bug for over 2 weeks, so it is
being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the
information that was originally requested, please do so and change
the status of the bug back to "Open".