On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 02:51:28 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Snell wrote: > >> > >>That's right. Besides, HeadInEntry is trivial to do as an extension, so > >>there's no reason to leave it in. > >> > > > > > > I agree with this so long as there is a core mechanism that allows a > > standalone entry to identify the feed to which it belongs. That > > mechanism does not have to be atom:head, but it does need to be part > > of the core. > > Why? >
As soon as I posted I knew you were going to come back and ask that :-) As defined by the spec, entries exist either independently or within the context of a feed. The state of being associated with a feed is a part of the core metadata about an entry given this definition. In standalone entries, absent HeadInEntry, there is no mechanism of expressing whether or not the entry is associated with a feed. The only assumption that can be made in that case, is that a standalone entry is not associated with any feed. As examples, the Atom-XMPP-Notify and Atom-HTTP-Notify proposals both illustrate cases where this assumption is not acceptable. Granted, however, both of these proposals could just as easily use some shared non-core extension element to identify the parent feed. Bottom line: In my opinion, the parent feed is just as core to the entries metadata as is the date it was updated or any of the other core elements. It *could* be defined as an extension, but I feel it is better handled in the core. > Robert Sayre > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
