* Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-07 22:40]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > But it breaks down for the aggregate feeds published by third > > parties. If look at more convoluted examples, it fast turns > > into web of trust territory... > You are correct -- with one caveat. If entries are signed,
Yes, of course. > This explains why I have in the past argued that synthetic or > aggregate feeds should be explicitly tagged as such or that we > should *require* that source data be inserted into all copies > of entries. And it is a good argument to make. > i.e. if we see something with a "foreign" source, we'll > probably want to check that source to validate the copied entry > before we republish it. Yes, thatâs the only sane approach I can think of, as well. > (Note: I'm not sure what we'll do if the entry has been purged > from the source-feed... Perhaps, we could flag it as > "questionable"???) Certainly questionable, unless there are indicators that the foreign source is trustworthy. After all â assuming a reasonably short timespan between each party polling the others â, if you canât find the updated entry in the source feed, how did the foreign source get it? Further, I agree with what you wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Personally, I think we're safer if we only allow feeds to speak > about themselves. The moment we start down the road of granting > rights, we're heading towards quicksand. What I donât know though, is whether this problem can be solved in entirety within the scope of the Atom format spec. It is probably safer and wiser for the spec to provide ways for republishers to make each othersâ lives easier (cf Thomasâ atom:source suggestion), but not to dictate how they should do their jobs. Regards, -- Aristotle
