OK, so it sounds like this is just down to the slippery topic of defining what an entry is, or coming up with the appropriate weasel words the have the same effect without doing it.
I don't envy the editors on this one.
Uh-oh...
On Feb 4, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0800 2/4/05, Tim Bray wrote:On Feb 4, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
That means that you're not allowed to sue the same atom:id in any two entries, ever.
I don't read it that way, although I understand how you might infer that; there's too much wiggle room in the current text for that intent to be clear.
I.e., just because it's a "permanent, universally unique identifier" doesn't mean you're not able to use it twice to talk about a single entry; to RDF people, this will seem quite natural. If you want to only see one instance of an atom:id's content in the set of all entries ever published in any feed, you need to say that explicitly.
I'm with Mnot on this one.
So am I; I should have sad "...in any two different entries, ever". And an archive of a feed can have the entry many times, no problem.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
