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/
