On 2006/10/05, at 12:55 PM, David Hall wrote:


Hey Mark -

Things are looking good to me.

Couple questions, comments:

1. I think your document might need to address what's supposed to happen if duplicate items are discovered when trolling through the paged info. Newer replaces older? (That makes the most sense to me) Although I guess
the argument might be, "what's an 'item'?".

I started going down that road in early drafts, but backed away from it when it started looking like a rat hole. :)

To allow FH to normatively specify what to do with duplicates, you have to figure out the ordering of entries, so you can determine their relative precedence. Since Atom doesn't have any explicit ordering, FH would need to either assume ordering semantics implicitly, or doing something explicit in an extension.

In the paged case, this seems like a tall order, because it's totally context-dependent; e.g., if you have OpenSearch or GData results, or orders for launching the missiles that are paged, and you happen to get a duplicate, the right thing to do may be very different.

In the archived case, it's a little easier, because we're already inferring that the pages closes to current do have precedence, so we just need to figure out what to do about duplicates in the same feed document.

I could see making the implied page-by-page precedence for Archived feeds in section 4 explicit. It would also be easy to add text saying that relative precedence in the same feed document can be determined by any extension that defines ordering, defaulting to the update time of the entries (or document order, topmost first? I think this is what most people do, but it seems contrary to the spirit of the Atom spec). I'm not crazy about actually defining an ordering extension (is one in progress? James?) in FH.

Does that work for you?


2. We're currently recommending 'feed history' as a best practice for
Media RSS. http://search.yahoo.com/mrss

(I'll need to update that link in the documentation)

Thanks!


Thanks-
David

From: Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 4 October 2006 11:13:06 AM
To: Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>
Subject: Pseudo-Last Call on draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-07


I've only had positive comments about -07 so far, so I've
recommended it for publication as a Proposed Standard to the IESG.

As part of that process, I'm issuing an informal, pseudo-WG Last
Call on the document to capture any remaining feedback. In particular,

* What do people think about putting this document on the Standards
Track?

* Do you have an implementation available, in progress, planned, etc.?

http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history/

Please provide feedback by October 18th.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/




--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Reply via email to