James et al,

I have to admit that this all sounds rather complicated. I'm already having
stiff resistance to adoption of Atom in other standards because of
[unfounded] perceived complexity and would rather not give the critics
justification.

>From what I understand of the requirements I tend to agree with Bob in that
atom:entry should contain a "deleted" attribute or entry, possibly
specifying the deletion time. As tombstones are almost always the exception
rather than the rule I don't see "deleted" placeholder text being a huge
problem and it allows publishers some flexibility in leaving some/all of the
content in place in an interoperable fashion (e.g. avoiding the need to
extend deleted-entry with atom:entry or its children). In any case I'm not
the first to 
suggest<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg20057.html>that
you can always exclude the tombstones by default and enabling them
with
a query parameter.

I do think this draft runs the risk of being widely implemented, and in its
current form will add non-negligible complexity to most client and server
code bases; in contrast ignoring entries with a "deleted" attribute/element
is a trivial change. If it's well justified and there's a strong consensus
then fine, but implementors of draft specifications know what they're
getting themselves into so I don't see this as a strong case to keep the
status quo.

Sam
Google

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:12 AM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> One additional comment, because of the extension model allowed by the
> tombstone, it would also be possible for a publisher to include the
> complete atom:entry as a child of the at:deleted-entry to address the
> scenarios that Bob has brought up... e.g.
>
> <at:deleted-entry>
>  ...
>  <atom:entry>
>    ...
>  </atom:entry>
>  ...
> </at:deleted-entry>
>
> - James
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:51 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yes, I wanted to be careful about dictating any kind of behavior if
> > the keys ended up being different because there are legitimate reasons
> > why they would be (e.g. if an editor deletes an entry created be a
> > different author). Applications just need to be aware of the potential
> > risks involved.  Ironically, the greater risk is deletion with a
> > compromised key.
> >
> > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, John Panzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Note that Salmon (http://salmon-protocol.org) also needs standalone
> (signed)
> >> deleted entry documents.  Its security model allows for changing of
> keysm --
> >> e.g., if the original was compromised -- as long as both keys are bound
> to
> >> the same author/uri.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > As for standalone deleted entry documents...
> >>> > the key question is
> >>> > whether they are compelling.
> >>>
> >>> An example... "Atom over XMPP" calls for publishing streams of Atom
> Entry
> >>> Documents over XMPP. Because there was no mechanism defined for
> deleting in
> >>> Atom itself, "Atom over XMPP" ended up defining a "retract" message for
> that
> >>> purpose. It would be more natural to use a tombstone.
> >>> But, the general question is: Atom format permits my application to
> >>> publish only Entry Documents. However, if I do that, and if a
> delete-entry
> >>> can only exist as an element of a Feed Document, how do I tell anyone
> about
> >>> a deleted-entry? Would I need to modify my protocol to support Feed
> >>> Documents simply as a means to transport deleted-entries? Doesn't seem
> >>> right.
> >>> bob wyman
> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:17 PM, James Snell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Heh, Bob... you and I seriously need to get into the same room with a
> >>>> whiteboard sometime.. lol..
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, first about your previous comment about atom:source... yes, the
> >>>> intention is for it to be identical to the use within atom:entry so I
> >>>> will tighten that up in the spec...
> >>>>
> >>>> As for standalone deleted entry documents... I definitely can think of
> >>>> a few generally interesting potential use cases... the key question is
> >>>> whether they are compelling.
> >>>>
> >>>> - James
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> > In Atom, both Entry Documents and Feed Documents are "top-level"
> >>>> > objects. An
> >>>> > entry may be contained within a Feed Document, but it need not be.
> This
> >>>> > is
> >>>> > an important characteristic of Atom and one that distinguishes it
> from
> >>>> > previous, legacy syndication formats. This attribute of Atom makes
> it
> >>>> > particularly well suited for use in applications that rely on
> combining
> >>>> > entries from multiple sources as well as applications that provide
> >>>> > real-time
> >>>> > delivery of data.
> >>>> > However, the deleted-entry that you define in the tombstone draft is
> >>>> > defined
> >>>> > as only existing within Feed Documents. This represents a
> significant
> >>>> > and
> >>>> > unfortunate departure from the base Atom RFC.
> >>>> > I would strongly encourage you to ensure that deleted-entry is
> >>>> > symmetrical
> >>>> > with atom:entry and that it is available in all contexts (i.e. both
> >>>> > within
> >>>> > and without a Feed Document) that an Atom entry is. Just as we can
> have
> >>>> > Entry Documents, we should be able to have Deleted-entry Documents.
> >>>> > bob wyman
> >>>> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:10 AM, James Snell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Another backwards compatible update... explicitly allowing for an
> >>>> >> optional atom:source element as a child of at:deleted-entry.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-08.txt
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> - James
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> - James Snell
> >>>>  http://www.snellspace.com
> >>>>  [email protected]
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - James Snell
> >  http://www.snellspace.com
> >  [email protected]
> >
>
>
>
> --
> - James Snell
>  http://www.snellspace.com
>  [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to