James Holderness wrote: > If there are people that want to do other things with tombstones related to > publishing or two-way syncing or whatever, that's great. I just don't see > why we have to try and share the same protocol if it means making my life > more difficult.
Looking at the discussion over the past day, I've had the same feeling but from a different perspective. In general, I agree with the principle from James Snell earlier in the thread: > Which brings us back to one of my original points: it would make the > most sense to have a single solution that works well across as many use > cases as possible. But there's definitely a balance to be achieved. It would be helpful to take a few steps back and spend some time discussing the scenarios, not just the technical details. From this thread, I've seen a few (not mutually exclusive) ideas described: 1) "hard" delete: delete an item and it's gone forever 2) "soft" delete: you can delete an item but the data and metadata are preserved so that you can un-delete the item 3) ability to delete comments from a blog for spam control 4) ability to delete posts from a blog 5) full two-way sync between nodes via feeds 6) ability to verify the source of an entry or tombstone And there are probably more that I missed. Steven
