Bob Wyman wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
If you produce feeds that contain multiple entries with the same id, there will be people who misunderstand such documents.
So what? If they initially misunderstand, they will eventually learn how to do it properly.
It is quite possible that "they" outnumber "you". I have seen the spec definition of elements in feed formats become /overtaken by events/, and eventually become defined by the common usage as opposed to the spec usage.
[snip]
In this particular debate, the core issue is "What is a Feed Document?" I have long contended that a Feed Document is a "sliding window" on a feed. Sayre and others have said that a Feed Document is "a representation of the current state of a set of entries." The difference is significant.
[snip]
Anyway, I am convinced that the "current state" view is less useful then the "sliding window" view. The current proposals to define an "archive" type to patch "sliding window" into Atom are excellent indications that I'm right... I know others disagree... I also realize that not many people will actually read this whole message. Ah well...
Who is "right" is not important to me.
If there are two different approaches, and those differences are "significant", I want those differences to be explicit in the document.
My weblog software does not maintain a historical perspective. To the best of my knowledge, neither does Blogger, MovableType, TypePad, Blosxom, WordPress, etc. Feeds from such tools will inevitably, therefore, represent a "current state" view.
Nor, do I expect that these tool manufactures have any interest in learning "how to do it properly".
- Sam Ruby
