Joe Gregorio wrote: > > I agree that there are ways to avoid the confusion. But, > > the latency from having to sync with the extra feed is > > unacceptable, > > To whom? And who is bearing the burden of your trade-off?
If the client is on a high-latency connection, then the last thing you want to do is double the number of requests and thus double the latency. For example, if you have 5 second latency, you don't want to make the user wait five extra seconds to verify that he hasn't deleted any entries today. > Most aggregators will ignore the 'deleted' status of an entry > and all those deleted entries will just be wasted bandwidth. That is true if the number of deleted entries is large. But, that will be rare for most applications I am interested in. Anyway, Atom isn't really a bandwidth-friendly format to start with. > > especially when > > multiplied by dozens or hundreds of feeds. > > There's no reason you couldn't collapse multiple trash feeds > into a single feed, all the atom:ids are universally unique. I am talking about a client subscribed to feeds delivered from unrelated sites. - Brian
