I'm having trouble seeing how this is relevant at all. If an
implementation doesn't implement tombstones, they'll ignore them. If
it chokes on them because they don't recognise them, or treat them as
if they're entries, that implementation is broken as per section six,
where all of this is very explicitly laid out. What's the problem?
On 07/01/2008, at 9:46 AM, David Powell wrote:
No. What a metadata element is "about" has no direct implications on
implementations, but the implied life-cycle of the metadata and
entities
involved (entry and feed) do.
Say you poll a feed URI twice, you might get back entry 1,2,3 in the
first
poll, and entry 2,3,4 in the second poll. Stateful Atom
implementations
will need to store entries that aren't in the most recent polling of
the
feed URI. This requires entry and feed state to be decoupled. A good
example is Microsoft's Feed Platform, which downloads feeds, and
presents
them to client applications via an API that allows the entries of a
feed
(including metadata elements) to be accessed as XML structures.
If you start putting entry metadata elements at <feed> level this
simply
won't work. Perhaps Windows Feed Platform is faulty for not
anticipating
James's latest proposal, but I don't think so.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
