On 5 May 2005, at 16:38, Graham wrote:
On 5 May 2005, at 3:32 pm, Henry Story wrote:As I explained in my lengthy reply to your lengthy post, I think one should be able to do either.
Each way has its advantages and disadvantages. Let the publisher decide which mechanism to use.
Well please flag it so that I can provide a consistent user interface to people's whims?
What is the problem with the user interface that you have exactly? I have pointed you to
BlogEd that keeps a history of all the changes to an entry. Try it out:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish/
Its open source, so you can also copy the code.
If you don't want to keep a history of the entries all you need to do is drop all but the
latest entry with the same id. There is nothing more to it. Just show the user the last
one you came across.
Since it does not cause any interoperability issues, what's the problem?
I have to come up with a new way to recognise and interpret such feeds where an entry (as defined by its id) isn't an entry but a feed of different entries.
No you don't. Just drop the old ones, if you don't care about the history. Really simple.
As Tim Bray's text says
[[ software MAY choose to display all of them or some subset of them ]]
So just drop the older versions.
I don't think that one would be using ids as a category system. If you go to
<http://google.com> you get todays front page. Tomorrow you get tomorrows front page.
What's the problem? Is <http://google.com> a hidden category system?
Charter: "Atom defines a feed format for representing resources such as Weblogs, online journals, Wikis,
and similar content"
yes, and it must also allow the representation of
[[ * a complete archive of all entries in a feed ]]
This proposal permits this, and it does not harm anyone else.
Atom is not a replacement for HTTP. Google.com is a web page, not "similar content". It's not relevant here.
I don't know where you get the idea that I said atom is a replacement for HTTP. Take a breath
perhaps and relax before you answer.
Graham
