Yep, the WG envisioned this, the final spec did not. :) On Saturday, October 24, 2009, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, the PSHB use case *was* frequently discussed in the Atom WG... The > reason for this is that what PSHB does is provide pretty much what FeedMesh > was intended to provide - a topic based subset of the content-based system > that Pubsub.com provided. > An atom:source, if present in an entry, should never be modified or > overwritten by an aggregator. An aggregator should only add atom:source if it > isn't already present. > If you want to show provenence, you need to add an extension element. As > pointed out in an earlier message, the WG was aware that provenence was > useful but we couldn't get consensus on how to record it. > Please, if you define a provenence element, include in the definition a > requirement to remove that element prior to canonicalisation when verifying > signatures... > bob wyman > On Oct 24, 2009 12:45 PM, "John Panzer" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ;). Ton... > >
-- -- John Panzer / Google [email protected] / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
