On 20/2/05 10:40 AM, "Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 user they're > getting the latest version, and they see something else, that doesn't fit my > definition of working correctly. >
Like I said, lobby for atom:modified. hmmm ... looking back in the archives I see you were opposed to atom:modified, you couldn't see any use case where you would want the entry instances to clearly indicate which is more recent. Hashes won't help you here. Is this where I say "told you so"? ;-) > A paradigm where the instance in the feed is always the newest version works > much much better. > A paradigm that fails completely once a reader starts traversing @rel="prev", or they have a planet aggregator in their subscriptions which has fallen behind due to ping lags. "the newest version" is something which should be publisher controlled, not left to the variable circumstances of protocol happenstance and idiosyncratic personal subscription lists. >> 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. OK, lets look at feed readers that don't then ... first off, generally speaking, you're unlikely to find a feed instance which does contain multiple entries with the same id, and if you did it would be because that is how the publisher wants it. The publisher wants both instances available for reading, who are you to conflate the two? If there is some broken [1] publishing software out there then readers will complain to the publisher (if they complain to you, say "that's how the publisher wants it"). Secondly, there is that use case where an archive of all versions of an entry is provided in a feed. This is provided so users can see all previous versions of the entry ... is it so bad then that a naïve feed reader would then display all versions of that entry? e. [1] do you know of any publishing software which currently emits feeds with multiple instances of entries? I can't think of any.
