I think there is a lot of strength to Eric's arguments below which could also be stated as "It's all about the Entries, stupid!" :->
But that is not the issue in this thread. The issue should rather be for Bob: would making the head data structure be a Entry data structure in any way affect the intent behind his pace.
And I don't think it does. If you really wanted a head in an Entry it would be just as simple to have a Entry contain a header property to an Entry, than it would be to have it contain a header property pointing to a head structure.
So I don't think Bob need worry about this pace affecting his proposal.
Henry
On 14 Nov 2004, at 16:51, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 14/11/04 4:02 AM, "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Imagine that there are two feeds that you wish to read: A and B. Now, imagine that you have two choices for how to read the content of these two feeds:
1. Receive each feed individually 2. Or, Receive both feeds in a composite feed
imagine an author writes an entry, and then publishes it...
1. in his main feed 2. in a category-specific feed 3. in some planet-x feed 4. in an RSS 1.0 feed for backwards compatibility
is that the same entry occurring in four different places, or is it four
different entries? My sense is that it is the same entry.
If that entry is then aggregated into a composite feed, does it matter which
feed it originally came from?
The essential nature of an entry is fully contained* within the entry
itself, and does not need rely on some context to give it proper meaning.
The context may give additional meaning, or it may not, but nonetheless it's
not part of the entry.
That's my sense of it.
e.
