Whoa ;). Tone it down some. Unless everyone on the mailing list is completely confident they are an Atom expert with an eidetic memory, there's always room for others to act as instructors when we do something potentially wrong. I just fixed a few problems I overlooked in the Atom spec (empty href's equating to a "/" relative URI), and I consider myself somewhat familiar with the specification. There's no need to fly off the handle using terms like "evil" and "pulling crap" as if it were a deliberate attempt to subvert the specification.
Paddy Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.survivethedeepend.com OpenID Europe Foundation Irish Representative ________________________________ From: James Holderness <[email protected]> To: Pubsubhubbub <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, October 24, 2009 12:21:41 PM Subject: [pubsubhubbub] Re: 7.4 aggregated Content distribution 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.
