I don't think this is within the scope of Atom or any other spec. If you want to differentiate your others, why not invest some time in a decent duplicate detection algorithm like Google did? This is your problem.
Graham
On 7 Apr 2005, at 7:29 pm, Bob Wyman wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:My apologies if I made the situation sound more dire than it is.Establishing equivalence only addresses a part of the problem.Fully agree. I just wanted to point out that a part of the problem is more solved than your post indicated.
However, even with the "alternate" we've still got a pretty big problem.
HTTP/1.x 301 Moved PermanentlyAnother partial solution... Useful in some situations, but relying
on it prevents anticipating change and thus may result in some data loss.
Also, a change like this requires access to the web server configuration in
many installations and hosted users can't always get such access.
The automated aggregators are stuck polling all feeds in many cases[When there are multiple feeds] Some aggregators continue to poll both locations, though. Not sure why. If they're doing it on purpose, I'm not sure they'd pay attention to feed links either.
because:
1. They can't determine the equivelance between feeds without
explicit statements from the publisher.
2. Even if equivalence is known, we can't know which feed is
"authoritative" or if one feed will be deleted in favor of the other. Thus,
we've got to read both to ensure that we are reading which ever one is more
long-lived.
3. We have to read all feeds since users like to be able to
subscribe to feeds using file names or masks on file names... If we don't
read all feeds, we will incorrectly fail to deliver to the user content that
we have available to us.
I'm not sure they'd pay attention to feed links eitherI *guarantee* you that if we had an accepted way to address this in feeds, PubSub *would* pay careful attention to it.
bob wyman
