* Franklin Tse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-11-13 11:40]:
> It looks that each Atom feed document should have its own id in
> RFC 4287...
I don’t see how that sort of conclusion can be supported by the
very spec section you quoted yourself:
When an Atom Document is relocated, migrated, syndicated,
republished, exported, or imported, the content of its
atom:id element MUST NOT change. Put another way, an atom:id
element pertains to all instantiations of a particular Atom
entry or feed; revisions retain the same content in their
atom:id elements.
I think that needs to inform a reading of the section you quoted
from RFC 5005:
A paged feed is a set of linked feed documents that together
contain the entries of a logical feed, without any guarantees
about the stability of each document's contents.
An archived feed is a set of feed documents that can be
combined to accurately reconstruct the entries of a logical
feed.
It seems relatively clear to me that “all instantiations of a
particular Atom feed” in RFC 4287 and “a logical feed” in
RFC 5005 refer to the same concept.
And so while the latter may say nothing about feed IDs, it seems
to me that an intent pretty strongly implied.
The problem is, of course, that this is very much a case of “I
know it when I see it”: what constitutes a logical feed is not
mechanically decidable. A spec can therefore not make any potent
mandates about such issues, and is reduced to vague language.
But vague language doesn’t imply an absence of intent; it merely
means that the intents in question defy precise codification.
Of course, at the cost of writing software that does nothing very
useful, you can insist on a literal reading of the letter of the
spec.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
