Tim Bray wrote:
> If I want to sign an entry and also want to make it available
> for aggregation then yes, I'd better put in an atom:source. But
> this is inherent in the basic definition of digsig; not something
> we need to call out. -Tim
Certainly, the chain of reasoning is as clear and logical as you
describe. However, it is also very clear that this is precisely the sort of
multi-step chain of reasoning that is often overlooked by even the most
earnest of implementers. We have many, many indications that significant
numbers of RSS/Atom implementers do not, in fact, think much beyond what it
takes to get their content into a file. Even the best implementers, and
valued participants in this working group, have regularly proved that they
don't remember to think out all the systemic issues of syndication. Perhaps
it is because there are so few of us that act as intermediaries... The
issues are not well understood by those who don't serve this function.
Forgive me for suggesting that we call out the obvious. However,
this particularly bit of obviousness is not very obvious. In fact, it is
probably not "obvious" to most folk until *after* it has been called out. We
will help matters greatly by at least providing a recommendation that source
elements be inserted in signed entries...
bob wyman
