The main point of this discussion is that what happens is completely up to the server implementation. It is entirely possible for a particular server to do exactly what you are suggesting. However, it is impossible for a client to make any assumptions about how a server will treat signed entries without prior specific knowledge of that server.
- James Bob Wyman wrote: > > I think it should be remembered that signed Atom entries *do* make a > great deal of sense within the context of the Atom formatted documents > -- whatever difficulties that they may cause in the protocol > discussion. > > One important use-case discussed during the definition of the Atom > syntax was that of aggregate or synthetic feeds. (i.e. feeds that are > composed of entries taken from more than one other feed). The current > syntax allows one to preserve a signed entry in an aggregate feed -- > as long as the signed entry had an atom:source element when it was > originally signed. > > If the protocol can't preserve the signature associated with an entry > provided by a client, then it would seem that the protocol can't be > used to construct an aggregated feed that preserves the integrity of > properly signed atom entries extracted from other feeds. That is > unfortunate and seems extremely non-optimal. > > bob wyman > >
