Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/30/05, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 02:02 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
The proposed compromise to allow duplicate IDs in feeds, on the condition that a source element is present, doesn't address the problem of quick scripts that probably won't group duplicate IDs.
I don't understand the last part of this sentence--could you explain?
Sure. Take a look at the discussion here: http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2005/04/09/Clone-Wars
Say someone writes a quick PHP script that doesn't keep any state and loops through the entries to display them on a web page. They'll have different results than a well-written desktop aggregator.
There can be no expectation about interoperability of invalid feeds. In the feed mentioned there, I presume that the "spid" part of the URI was meant to be substituted with some sort of product id. The ids encoded inside the links clearly would do. Heck, the links themselves are better "globally unique identifiers" than the ones provided as the guids.
One of the clearest requirements that aggregator authors have provided to Atom is the wisdom of requiring unique IDs on entries. There may be consensus that unique by source is sufficient.
- Sam Ruby
