On May 6, 2005, at 5:17 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Dave Johnson wrote:Immediately after sending this message, I had a rush of second thoughts.
My point #2 is not very well thought out. I think it applies for things like earthquake data, but when Atom feeds represent blog entries or articles (in an archive or an Atom Protocol feed) the ID represents the article not an event in the blog entry's life. So, you can discount my second reason against the pace.
Good, because not everyone would agree that's what's being modeled. Now I also think your 1) starts to fall away as well because 2) no longer holds. That is, some of the argument for "Current best practice" you're talking about (you sure about "best" in there? ;) is predicated on entries being like events. Aggregators tend, or would like, to treat entries as singular happenings. Finally some events are not easily modeled in the discrete way you're talking about (in turn some of that comes down to how you model time), I don't think we have to worry about those here.
Yes, I think both of my arguments fail to hold and I no longer have a real objection to duplicates. Allowing duplicates gives feed produces to model events or other objects (versioned documents in a wiki) as they wish. Like you, I wonder "Does anyone remember why having the same id in a feed is a bad idea?"
- Dave
