Well I should have put a +1 for PaceMagicId. Sorry I did not.
I think the counters to this pace are too strong. It would certainly
be better
if the client could suggest that the id he desires to be used be the
one the
server uses, and if this case can be distinguished from one where he
is happy
for the server to create an id. I don't see any harm in that. This still
leaves the further solution I proposed
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg03007.html
where the server can specify in the feed or entry documents
the relation between the id he trusts and the id the client
wanted to have. I think we then have the best of all possible worlds.
Henry
On 7 Nov 2005, at 03:15, Tim Bray wrote:
Invalid Atom / atom:id handling
* http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMagicId (arno)
Rejected. There is consensus that clients SHOULD submit valid Atom
entries, and we do not specify any server behaviors with respect to
handling of atom:id values.
(see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02739.html)
(see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02829.html)
