On Feb 1, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 31, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Over-specification is just too fun. So that would mean I am required by Atom format to treat two different entries with the id "http://tbray.org/uid/1000"; as the same entry, even when I received the first one from tbray.org and the second from mymonkeysbutt.net?
Oh yeah, that'll be fun. ;-)
Well, it would be much better than we have now. Anyone who subscribes to aggregations (for example, I subscribe to the planetsun.org aggregated feed), is used to seeing the same entry over and over and over again. This problem is only going to get worse. With Atom's ID semantics and compulsory <updated> timestamp, I would hope that my aggregator would have a chance of not showing me the same entry unless it's got a later timestamp than what I've seen. -Tim
The problem is that the requirement you suggested removes their ability to use common sense in dealing with same-ID entries and remain compliant with the format. You don't need to tell aggregators how to implement their trust mechanism. Just tell them what the format means and they will either improve their presentation or lose to some other aggregator who does it right.
If you do want to place requirements on aggregators, then please do so in a separate spec or in an appendix. That way, us folks who don't implement aggregators don't need to obey requirements that conflict with basic content management and security principles.
....Roy
