* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-11 07:25]: > > On 11/8/05 3:05 PM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What scenario exists wherein it would be *more* desirable to > > provide *only* a dereferencable location but *not* an ID? > > When would it be *wiser* to *rely* on a pointer to a resource > > which is always in danger of voiding, irrecoverably breaking > > the connection from a reply to its parent? > > scenario: I'm reading some feed I've subscribed to, and hit an > entry which is a reply to someone else's posting elsewhere. I'm > not subscribed to that other feed. I want to read it. There > doesn't exist any atom:id resolvers (yet). The author neglected > to include a direct link. How do I get there?
How is that an argument for omitting the ID? It’s an argument in favour of including a source link, but both forms provide for a way to store this information. > Are authors only going to reply to Atom feed publishers? Are > they going to avoid replying to RSS feeds, or to statements on > some generic HTML page (or even PDF document)? Requiring an ID > when an ID may not be available will mean not being able to > create in-reply-to links to non-Atom resources. Yeah; point conceded, as I already wrote to James. And as I said there, I’d still like the ID to be REQUIRED when replying to Atom entries. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
