On Sunday, May 22, 2005, at 07:14 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 2:11 AM -0400 5/21/05, Bob Wyman wrote:
"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry."
+1. I can live with Tim's original wording because the phrase that Bob
removes is impossible to measure or enforce, but Bob's wording is
cleaner for the same result.
Yeah, I like Bob's better too. And if the word "appear" can be
interpreted to refer to the action of first appearing, and not to the
state of existing (having been copied from the feed where it
"appeared")...yes, I'm totally twisting it to my liking...then
consuming apps are free to determine for themselves whether the entries
originated ("appeared") in the same feed and are therefore the same
entry or whether one of them is trying to DOS the other.
...but I'd rather that we state that "If multiple atom:entry elements
originating in the same Atom Feed (document?) have the same atom:id
value, they describe the same entry."
We MIGHT consider omitting the word "document". It's purpose is of
course to speak to multiple instances of an entry within the same
document, but the same rule applies to multiple instances appearing in
a feed at different times. Removing "document" would change the focus
of the sentence, making the fact that multiple instances can appear in
the same document less clear...or even totally unclear...so perhaps two
sentences or something like this would be even better:
"If multiple atom:entry elements originating in the same Atom feed have
the same atom:id value, whether they exist simultaneously in one
document or in different instances of the feed document, they describe
the same entry."
