On 11/2/08 2:39 PM, "Daniel Aleksandersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Antone. It should be the same ID. If the point of the ID is > to identify the source (collection, feed, whatever you want to call it) > rather than the document (the feed file). I'm pretty much in agreement here, although I would posit that there are scenarios when the feed ID might be different, like re-syndication where there is some collation and selection going on. For example: one of my clients is a film industry news outlet and they have their own blog and feeds, but they also re-syndicate selected articles from the mainstream newspapers. In this scenario the one entry may appear in two different feeds, each with their own feed id but retaining the entry ID of course. Similarly if I gather together the "10 best blog posts about Atom" and publish that as a feed then that feed would have a different ID from the source feeds. Well, it'd have to, since if there are multiple source feeds I can only have one feed ID in the document I publish. The line gets blurry however when the re-syndicated feed only draws from one source .. is this a filtered version of the source feed, or a new feed? e.
