On 2008-02-04 23:06, you wrote: > Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-04 16:10]: > >> Why does so many in this list fail to eralise that I am talking > >> about the <feed> element’s <id> element? > > > > Ugh, sorry. > > > > Well, the point about atom:id being globally unique continues to > > apply in either case. > > > > However, I’m not sure what the feed ID really identifies, nor can > > The Feed level atom:id is primarily useful as a logical group > identifier. For instance, suppose you have a collection of Atom feed > documents representing a paged set. Together, all of the entries > comprise a single logical group commonly identified by the atom:feed's > atom:id element. If there was no atom:id element, there'd be no way of > grouping entries from multiple feed documents into a single logical > set.
Then why is this not written in any specifications? > > I recall any compelling argument about its meaning, so I have no > > idea when feeds should share an ID. (The fact that everyone > > thought you were talking about entry IDs is a strong indicator > > that no one has much use for feed IDs.) > > > > In the context of Atompub it is somewhat clear: when two feeds > > are views onto the same collection, they should probably have > > the same ID. However, even then it is not necessarily clear > > when a feed other than the collection feed is a view onto that > > collection rather than a distinct entity that happens to draw > > entries from the collection. > > > > Regards, -- Daniel Aleksandersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
