On Jan 31, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
PaceFeedState:
If no further discussion: Like PaceSupersede, this model of publishing does not (so far) enjoy consensus support.
Partially pro: 2 Contra: 0
Conclusion: Not enough interest. Close it.
If this is the direction we go in on this, that's fine with me, but I think that the spec needs to say *something* about managing feed state, even if it's just this:
[[[ x. Managing Feed State
Atom Processors MAY keep state (e.g., metadata in atom:head, entries) sourced from Atom Feed Documents and combine them with other Atom Feed Documents, in order to facilitate a contiguous view of the contents of the feed. The manner in which Atom Feed Documents are combined in order to reconstruct a feed (including methods of identifying duplicate entries, updating metadata, and dealing with missing entries) is out of the scope of this specification, but may be defined by an extension to Atom.
]]]
So, if we drop PaceFeedState, I propose the text above.
-- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
