On Monday, May 2, 2005, at 05:23 PM, Graham wrote:
On 2 May 2005, at 10:03 pm, Antone Roundy wrote:No, my wording is just imperfect. It should not be use with an entry originating in a different feed.The content of an atom:id element MUST be created in a way that, as nearly as possible, assures uniqueness. An atom:id value that has been used with one entry in a particular feed MUST NOT ever be used with a different entry in the same feed, and SHOULD NOT ever be used with an entry in another feed.
That last part: Are you against category feeds? Are you against aggregated feeds? Are you against search results feeds?
Category feeds: that's something we haven't dealt with well yet. Should they, or feeds that combine category feeds present the entries like aggregated feeds? Should we add an "authoritative" link type, as recently discussed, and change this wording to work with that?
Search results feeds: more difficult. If the search criteria don't change, then it's the same feed, so the prior sentence applies. If the search criteria do change...is it the same "entry"? I'd imagine that in some cases it might be, but in some I'd think it isn't. Perhaps that's exception to the SHOULD NOT. But it does sound like a good argument for fixing this sentence.
It's time for dinner, so I'll have to wording to express the idea that an ID should correspond to exactly one "entry resource". Feel free to beat me to it.
