Bob Wyman wrote: > On 12/10/06, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The only danger [of defining a new media type] is if someone has > implemented >> APP per the moving target which is Draft-[n++] ... they should >> revise their test implementations as the draft updates, and certainly >> update once it reaches RFC status, so no sympathies there. > > The impact here is not just limited to APP implementations. If a new media > type is defined, it will undoubtedly appear in other contexts as well. > Given > the current definition of the atom syntax, it is perfectly reasonable > for an > "aggregator" to treat a single entry as the semantic equivelant of a > single-entry feed. If a new media type is defined, such an application > would > end up having to be modified. That's not right... APP is not the only > context within which Atom is used.
I still don't understand the meaning of equivalence between an entry document and a single-entry-feed document. I have read your other message and I'm still nowhere near an understanding of it. In fine if you accept that an entry document is just equivalent to a single-entry-feed you have to detail precisely how this equivalence takes place and can be measured. Is it based on the atom:id? If yes is it on the atom:id of the entry or the feed? Is it based on its metadata? Again which ones since an entry embedded in a feed can overwrite the feed metadata. You should also explain why we have entry document at all if they are equivalent to single-entry-feed ones. Moreover you claim that it's going to break implementations. Which ones? How? Why? Can't those applications be updated? Why shouldn't APP be set straight because of those applications? There is a large feeling on the WG that there could be a use for distinction at the message level. We all acknowledge that could be disruptive but I don't think I can agree that it would bring down a all set of applications. You say those in favor haven't brought good use cases but neither have you. - Sylvain
