+1. I've asked several times why using atom:entry would be better than x:deleted and I have yet to see a clear, coherent argument.
- James Mark Nottingham wrote: > > I still don't understand the pushback that people have against a new > feed-level element not "smelling right." Atom explicitly allows > extensions there. > > Cheers, > > > On 02/01/2008, at 1:52 PM, Peter Keane wrote: > >> >> Re: tombstones, I'll just throw in a mention if the OAI-ORE work (Open >> Archives Initiative Object Reuse and Exchange - >> http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.1/atom-implementation) which figures >> to be very important in archiving/preservation, etc. and serializes a >> "Resource Map" (named graphs that represent aggregations of Web >> Resources) and serializes them using Atom. >> >> The issue of tombstones will be big and the previous discussion around >> "soft-deletes" (deletions that can be resurrected or perhaps used in >> various client-determined ways) will be a significant use case. I >> feel like Joe Gregorio's suggestion of two feeds >> (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01092.html) feels >> like the best solution for this case. (since those deletes really ARE >> of type atom:entry -- a new type does not smell quite right). >> >> And why can't atom:category be used to indicate that an entry has been >> deleted? (In fact, perhaps a few different categories for the >> different kinds of "deleted"). >> >> -peter keane >> >>> >>> James M Snell wrote: >>>> Bill de hOra wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> 1: If it doesn't have a permalink (or a link at all), it's not on the >>>>> web; in all seriousness, why do we care about it? >>>> Whether the thing has a permalink or not is irrelevant. We're talking >>>> about having a mechanism of indicating when an entry is no longer part >>>> of a collection or a feed. It could be that the entry still exists in >>>> some form or other somewhere else, but how do I know that the thing is >>>> no longer part of a specific feed? >>> >>> It's not in the feed anymore - but first perhaps define "feed". >>> >>> >>>>> 2: why does it matter, the difference between falling off the >>>>> bottom and >>>>> being deleted? >>>> Define "falling off". If the feed is paged, does "falling off" mean >>>> we'll find the entry on the next or previous page? What if the feed >>>> only shows the 100 most recent items? What should I do with my local >>>> copy of the entry if suddenly the entry no longer appears in the feed? >>>> There is a significant difference between falling off and being >>>> deleted. >>> >>> I didn't say there wasn't, I asked it be explained why the difference >>> matters in this case, to the extent we need a new type and new markup. >>> >>> cheers >>> Bill >>> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >
