On 2008-02-04 15:09, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-01 20:30]: > > On 2008-02-01 15:41, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > > * Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-01 05:15]: > > > > It is not globally unique on a per my feed basis; but it is > > > > globally unique on a per…me…basis. > > > > > > Put the ISSN into a tag: URI instead of using the urn:issn: > > > scheme. > > > > What good would that do? > > Tag URIs contain your domain, so they provide a globally unique > identifier, even if you’re using your ISSNs in them, which are > not by themselves globally unique. > > * Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-01 22:30]: > > The question was regarding archive feeds. Should these use the > > same ID as the main feed (issn), or should I append an archive > > date range as a second identifier (issn#date)? > > The entire point of atom:id is that entries are entities in their > own right and may appear in multiple different feeds; so the > atom:id for a particular entry should always be the same no > matter which feed that entry is in. If you use different IDs for > entries in your archive feed, you are effectively asserting that > the entries in the archive feed are not the same > > The feed might even be provided by a search engine such as > Icerocket, Bloglines or Google Blog Search; hence the requirement > for atom:id to be *globally* unique, not just unique within a > feed or even your domain. So urn:issn: URIs are not usable as > atom:id values. If you use them and some other publication uses > them in *their* feeds as well, then your entries won’t be > distinguishable by atom:id from the entries of that other > publication when a user goes to a feed search engine and gets > entries from both your and the other publication in the result > feed. > > Another issue is that atom:id values are not supposed to be used > for any purpose other than identifying an entry, and so are not > supposed to be normalised in any way – only compared character- > by-character. > > So in other words, don’t try to put anything meaningful in > atom:id – just make sure it is globally unique and never changes. > > Hence why I said to use tag: URIs.
Why does so many in this list fail to eralise that I am talking about the <feed> element’s <id> element? Not an <entry>’s? I see these messages were people think I am talking about entries all the time. That is wrong. I know that they should uniquely identify the entries in the <entry> element. But what about the the <feed> element? -- Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
