Just wanted to follow through on this for everyone. Given that there are vendors getting ready to ship code based on the current rev of the spec, I'm *not* going to rename the "id" attribute to "ref". Yes, I know that "id" is confusing to some folks, but we're just talking the name of a single attribute and not a critical functional bug. From this point forward, only critical spec bugs will be fixed and I will be submitting the spec for consideration as a standards track RFC in the not too distant future.
- James Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I was reading the Atom Feed Thread draft [1] yesterday and I ran into a > problem as I described in my blog [2]. To recap the 'in-reply-to' > element defined in that specification takes an 'id' attribute that > specifies /the universally unique identifier of the resource being > responded to/. > > Calling such an attribute 'id' is a mistake in my opinion as it confuses > with the actual ID of the element itself within the XML document it > belongs to and it makes impossible for another element within the > document to have the same value as an 'id'. I would rather move the > content of that attribute as a text element of the 'in-reply-to' element > (as does the atom:id element). > > Thoughts? > - Sylvain > > [1] > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-05.txt > [2] http://www.defuze.org/archives/2006/03/14/about-atom-feed-threads > >
