On 5/21/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Saturday, May 21, 2005, 8:13:13 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > So, really, we have folks who want to delay this spec > > because they think they've solved Distributed Versioning On The > > Internet. > > This is a straw man argument.
No, it isn't. You think you'll be able to disambiguate entries by adding a more-specific date field, making for two date fields. I think you can disambiguate entries by adding any number of extension fields. That's great. Add extensions. > > PaceDateModified2 was created to allow subscribers to determine the > latest revision of an entry within a feed document. > > Please explain the specific issues that you believe will prevent > PaceDateModified2 from meeting its goal. Tim gave some specific issues > he had with atom:modified and I addressed them. I need something more > than "there's no reason to expect it will work". The WG disposed of this long ago because atom:modified cannot be operationally distinguished from atom:updated. Obviously, if people start shipping feeds with the same id and atom:updated figure, it will be needed. There's no reason to standardize it, though. We don't know how that would work. So, I can see the rationale for allowing duplicate IDs. Hey, you never know. > If the proposal is as doomed as you suggest, then we will be able to > drop this quickly and move on. Currently we seem to be just wasting > time. > > > > I remember Graham once tried to re-raise the atom:modified idea, and > > was told that he was very close to being out-of-order. Well, it > > certainly is now. Not only is it offensive, > > I proposed PaceAllowDuplicateIdsWithModified/PaceDateModified2 to fix > a bug in PaceAllowDuplicateIDs, not to add a feature. Read Bob's email. atom:modified doesn't help with revisions. Why are timestamps and atom:id related? > > PaceAllowDuplicateIDs is a major change to Atom. The fact that it was > proposed after IETF Last Call suggests that we already had a process > problem. No, WGs deal with issues raised in last call. That's completely appropriate. > The fact that issues have been raised with this proposal, but > the debate has been curtailed on proposals to fix it suggests to me > that we need another round to clear this up. No, it suggests that someone who hasn't read the previous WG discussion is proposing atom:modified Yet Again. Robert Sayre
