Ok. I am sorry. I thought I had made a really good case for a simple argument to allow
multiple entries with the same id in a feed, and thought it had in fact made it into the spec.
I then discovered that it still had not.
I cleazrly just have no idea how one goes around convincing this group of anything, so I'd better not participate anymore.
On 19 Apr 2005, at 19:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 6:12 PM +0200 4/19/05, Henry Story wrote:I don't see where the consensus was by the way.
Correct. There was no consensus to remove the current wording.
And I never saw any vote on the issue.
Correct: there was no voting, there was a consensus call. I'm not sure how you could have missed it: PaceRepeatIdInDocument was discussed *heavily* in the past few months. The conclusion was:
PaceRepeatIdInDocument
Lots of discussion, more -1's than +1's.
DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it. But now we have a problem, in that this removed ambiguity in one direction, just closing it leaves the ambiguity. So the only logical conclusion is that the WG is directing the editors to put language in that explicitly forbids entries with duplicate <atom:id> in an <atom:feed>.
Yes. I remember the above point very well. And I was very surprised by it. After all
here is a decision being made to close a pace and take a decision with regard to it that is
not explicitly stated in that Pace without then putting it back forward to the group.
I in fact did question that decision and this went on in a long thread PaceRepeatIdInDocumentSolution and so on. I suppose the result of that argument
was not clear either.
Again I suppose I just don't understand how to make an argument that can convince
the group.
Henry Story
