On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:49:37 +0100, Asbj�rn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:40:25 -0600, Lance Lavandowska > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I thought the whole point was to indicate to feed readers that a > > particular entry was revoked/removed/deleted/whatever. Hence this > > discussion should stay in 'syntax' unless I misunderstand the scope of > > 'protocol'. > > You wrap an action in XML. I think actions belong in the protocol. And > yes, I think 'published' (or 'issued') and 'modified' are actions as well, > and have said on several occasions that I think they belong with the > protocol, not the format.
I see your point, but tend to disagree. "modified" - yes, there would be a strong case for that being in protocol, if it's aimed right down at machine-bits level. But "updated" is up with the content as top-level publisher/reader-oriented information. Similarly "deleted" (or whatever) in the form it has been proposed isn't really saying some piece of data has necessarily changed, rather that the publisher wishes to provide some addtional information about that data (it's no longer wanted). It's very much up to the client, likely in the UI on how to respond to that piece of information, as in the case of "updated". We could push "deleted" down to the protocol level, and have it correspond to HTTP DELETE at the other end of the pipe. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what is required. I think what's needed is more "remove from view" than "remove every trace". An attribute of the content, rather than the total disappearance of the content (most of the time it probably will be disappeared, but that's up to the implementation). It also sidesteps any ideas of a resource no longer existing, rather than just a particular representation. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
