James M Snell wrote: > > http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=818 >
> Steven Lees wrote: > > > > It would be great to hear about those issues. For what it's > worth, we released our "v1" spec of SSE today. (Not to say > that there isn't room for more discussion.) We also renamed > it to "FeedSync", hoping that name might be a little easier > to remember/spell/etc. The new spec is on > http://feedsync.org/spec/. The main issue I have had with FeedSync is that deleted entries look like "live" entries for every consumer that doesn't understand FeedSync. This means that you cannot use FeedSync unless all clients are FeedSync-aware. James idea of using an extension element solves this problem nicely. The "by" endpoint label is supposed to be user-readable but unique; that seems difficult to achieve. I would like to see some advice on how to achieve this, especially in the case where one authenticated user has multiple endpoints (say, two phones, an in-office desktop machine, and a large pool of laptops). > We considered a separate spec for tombstones > that was independent of the other sync extensions. > It didn't seem worth it given the benefit of having > all of the sync-related extensions in a single, > coherent spec. If you want spam control, chances > are pretty good you want one-way sync, and at that > point you want more than just tombstones. In a single-user blog, where the user is editing the blog in both a blogging client and in the blog's web interface, the blogging client should be notified (via the feed) when the user deletes an entry using the web interface. A simple tombstone mechanism is sufficient for handling this, because none of the conflict-resolution stuff is necessary. - Brian
