James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
That said, what is the value of reusing atom:entry in this case?
[snip]
Two things:
1: what you deleted was an entry.
Ok, but why does that mean we have to use atom:entry to represent the
thing that no longer exists?
Because as I said, the thing was an Entry. But we're moving the
discussion about a bit. If we're talking about hard delete, all you need
is 410 gone, no markup needed. For soft deletes (or audit, or history,
or compliance, or who knows), why not represent the deleted Entry with
an Entry? It seems the most natural thing.
2: you might want to know the properties of the entry that was deleted,
not just its name.
There's no reason this data could not be added as children of the
x:deleted element. Keep in mind that atom:entry has minimum content
requirements so you'd either have to keep around a minimum amount of
metadata or start passing around useless cruft.
It's still cruft.
Apologies tho'; I know I came to this thread late, but I'm not seeing
the reason to introduce a new type (aka 'tombstone'), insofar as adding
a new type is a big deal.
cheers
Bill
