On Oct 21, 10:13 pm, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Seems to me that the client model for processing a single vs.
> > aggregated distribution might be quite a bit different. And also, the
> > original upstream feed might have used entry/source already (this
> > makes me nervous about the whole notion of PuSH co-opting <source> for
> > its own purposes).
>
> This is the first time I've heard someone point this out. I believe
> the atom:source element was specifically included in that spec for the
> purpose that PubSubHubbub is using it.
Have you even read the Atom spec? From section 4.2.11:
"If an atom:entry is copied from one feed into another feed, then
the source atom:feed's metadata MAY be preserved within the
copied entry by adding an atom:source child element, IF IT IS
NOT ALREADY PRESENT IN THE ENTRY" (emphasis mine)
When you casually wipe out an existing source element, you're not
only erasing the true source of the entry - in some cases you're
potentially erasing the actual authorship of the entry too. I
can't believe you think that's acceptable!
The Google Readers "shared items" feeds do the same thing. In
that case you go so far as to add your own author element with
the name "(author unknown)". No, the author wasn't "unknown" -
you just deleted them.
You people need to stop pulling crap like this. It's evil.
