On Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 03:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
-1 to the Pace.
Just to be sure we don't forget, if we don't want to allow multiple versions of an entry in the same feed document, we need to add language to the spec to clarify that point.
Like Robert, I believe that this Pace breaks the feed format. Here is a *recent* example of somebody who associated the same id (in this case rdf:about) with different entries:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10636557
Without the Pace, the feed wouldn't validate...and who knows exactly how applications would handle the entries in question. With it, the feed would validate, but the entries in question would be handled incorrectly since they'd be considered the same entry. Either way, buggy feeds are bad.
I would prefer a solution whereby if somebody wants to include versions of entries into a feed they need to include a version specific identifier. Or that we define a third type of Atom document in section 2, namely an atom:archive.
Of the two, I'd strongly prefer an archive document type. Requiring a version specific-identifier and another identifier or method to tie all the versions together seems unnecessarily complex.
