Eric Scheid wrote:
On 4/4/05 1:32 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not to pick on Eric; others have said things along the lines of:
no offence taken.
This isn't a negotiating game. We have to have technical reasons for our assigning requirements levels.
I can't think of any MUST reasons for [EMAIL PROTECTED]'self'] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]'alternate'].
Then let me try and help you with that.
I can think of long nights tracking down data because I didn't have way to hand systems an identifier.
In the Atom 06 format there are 3 things potentially acting as identifiers for the source of an Atom feed. The one that going by the commonsense name least likely to be considered a meaningful identifier is mandatory. Sorry to offend anyone in this WG, but that's absurd. Never mind that we're creating an arbitrary distinction between feed ids and entry ids.
I have very strong opinions on this: too many identifiers cause problems when it comes to system and data management -worst scenario in terms of cost are too many unreliable identifiers. For a pure client/server newsreader case I can see how this might not bite so much. For anyone passing Atom along a processing chain or heaven forbid, something like a SEDA system, not having assured easy to find identifiers is a cost.
Being able to rely on the presence of an (ideally, single) identifier is a management win and an interop win. It is one of the reasons Web based systems are easy to run. Not having such a thing for Atom feeds ensures people will have to invent it especially for non-HTTP scenarios. The upfront cost of mandating either self or id is so small versus the benefit of being able to shout out something's name when something goes awry I can't believe we're even having this discussion.
Anyway I've made my position clear at this point. Please make id or self mandatory.
[Please don't argue on the basis that URL links aren't identifiers or names and shouldn't be treated as such; it's de jure Web architecture that they are.]
cheers Bill
