When logging into Hoot Suite to check, it was giving the same invalidation error as the W3 Org. f=8&t=427&e=1&view=unread#unread—something about Net Objects fixing or editing with mixed content via SSL might have unintentionally caused the RSS invalidation errors.
Regardless, I consider this a "serious issue," since I find the Koken generated RSS feeds useful, when making scheduled, automatic posts to other social media via Hoot Suite, IFTTT, Buffer, etc.
Did Team Net Objects did something to cause the invalidation errors?
I use Feed For All to construct all my feeds and never had a problem.Feed For All have a validator in the software that always gives a positive validation result.I have trouble validating 2 of my feeds as they show up as a webpage I cant post the link for you to look up.They validate ok in validator.w3 - but not infeedvalidator dot org/I have asked elsewhere, but still cannot find an answer to this problem Hope someone can help me with thiskind regards Alana it validates as valid XML on validator.w3.Hello Koken Userns, Is it just me or are you having trouble validating your RSS feeds generated by Koken?
Currently, both my RSS made by Regale 2 (Blog installation) and Madison 2 (Portfolio installation) are not validating by the W3 Org. Go to: Admin- Clean system caches Please remember that neither Bjarne or I assumes any liabilities for this "fix," as it is not yet considered a canon fix from Team Net Objects. Kindest regards, Ron A bit easier to read and follow instructions can also be found over at the KCS forum:https://kokensupport.com/viewtopic.php?
This is as much information I can give based on what you have provided.
Thanks for your reply mindfullsilence but I still dont understand, here are the feeds that show as webpages in feedvalidator dot orgwww dot tablelampsforlivingroom dot co/rss/pod-table-lamps-guide.xmlwww dot tablelampsforlivingroom dot co/rss/- then he should be fine, as that validator check specifically for RSS and ATOM feeds, not just XML.altom55: I won't worry about what Feed says about your feeds "looking like webpages" - I checked both of your feeds and not only do they validate fine at the W3C's validator (as you say), but, much more importantly, they operate perfectly well as feeds (i.e.
Could someone point me to where I'm going wrong please?
LINK’s financial management leads to a transparency of figures and supports a real understanding of the numbers in your Units Plan.
One of the feeds is a podcast and validates in itunes so it must be valid Thanks again - Al.......