On 19 Feb 2005, at 11:06 pm, Eric Scheid wrote:
If two instances with the same atom:id have the same atom:updated, then there is no significant difference between the two, so go with a random choice
*that the author considered significant*. If you've told the use they're getting the latest version, and they see something else, that doesn't fit my definition of working correctly. A paradigm where the instance in the feed is always the newest version works much much better.
For feed readers that already support entry persistence and entry
replacement when an entry is updated from one document to the next, why is
this an order of magnitude more difficult to do in the one document?
I was talking about feed readers that don't.
And even those that do, you now need to look for duplicates within the feed instead of just comparing the new set to the old set. ie Instead of removing duplicates that exist between set A and set B, I now also have to look within set A as well. You seem to have suggested earlier that entries be added to the store one by one. This is not possible in Shrook because of the various layers of idiot proofing.
Graham
