Agreed to keeping the tone civil -- assume good intentions until proven otherwise; it can only help.
Mea culpa for not noticing this issue with PubSubHubbub. The Atom spec didn't envision this use case and so atom:source is almost, but not quite, what's needed -- thus the confusion is understandable. The right thing to do IMHO is to add something like a psh:provenance element that is just like atom:source but tracks the most recent context of the entry. -- John Panzer / Google [email protected] / abstractioneer.org <http://www.abstractioneer.org/> / @jpanzer On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Pádraic Brady <[email protected]>wrote: > 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<http://www.openideurope.eu/> > > > ------------------------------ > *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. >
