RE: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Bob Wyman
MAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:30 PM To: Henry Story Cc: atom-syntax Syntax' Subject: Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds... I'm in favour of allowing duplicate id

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Antone Roundy
On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Bob Wyman wrote: Bill de hÓra wrote: I'm going to think about it some more but atm I'm not sure what you're proposing helps against DOS. My proposal says that things are considered the same only if found in the same feed. This is, I believe, the only way t

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Bob Wyman
Bill de hÓra wrote: > I'm going to think about it some more but atm I'm not sure what you're > proposing helps against DOS. My proposal says that things are considered the same only if found in the same feed. This is, I believe, the only way to prevent someone from maliciously erasing some

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Henry Story
Just to end on a positive note, I'll +1 this suggestion by Graham. Henry On 19 Apr 2005, at 18:30, Graham wrote: I'm in favour of allowing duplicate ids when the source-id is different to simplify creating merged feeds, which would allow the client to figure out what to do. Under any other circum

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Henry Story
Ok. I am sorry. I thought I had made a really good case for a simple argument to allow multiple entries with the same id in a feed, and thought it had in fact made it into the spec. I then discovered that it still had not. I cleazrly just have no idea how one goes around convincing this group o

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Graham
I'm in favour of allowing duplicate ids when the source-id is different to simplify creating merged feeds, which would allow the client to figure out what to do. Under any other circumstance, definitely not. Graham

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Paul Hoffman
At 6:12 PM +0200 4/19/05, Henry Story wrote: I don't see where the consensus was by the way. Correct. There was no consensus to remove the current wording. And I never saw any vote on the issue. Correct: there was no voting, there was a consensus call. I'm not sure how you could have missed it: P

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Robert Sayre
Henry Story wrote: I don't see where the consensus was by the way. And I never saw any vote on the issue. Like most issues one gets the impression that Atom is run on some pretense democracy. There is no voting in the IETF. Please read the beginners' documentation found on ietf.org. Here's a goo

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Henry Story
On 19 Apr 2005, at 18:27, Bill de hÓra wrote: Henry Story wrote: So I call for a real open vote on the issue. You don't need to call for a vote, just ask the chairs/editors who keep track of such matters, about the particular specification. Well we need some objective way to tell what the consens

Re: call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Bill de hÓra
Henry Story wrote: So I call for a real open vote on the issue. You don't need to call for a vote, just ask the chairs/editors who keep track of such matters, about the particular specification. If you can point out to me my recollection of the consensus on that issue is incorrect, then do so.

call for a vote - was: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Henry Story
I don't see where the consensus was by the way. And I never saw any vote on the issue. Like most issues one gets the impression that Atom is run on some pretense democracy. Some people have made up their minds for god knows what reason, and others are just here to follow. The more we chatter on

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-19 Thread Bill de hÓra
Bob Wyman wrote: What if the two entries are both found in the same feed but have different source feeds identified in their atom:source elements? These two entries are clearly *from* different feeds, yet they might be found in a single feed. Not clearly; one or more of them might be misatt

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-18 Thread Bob Wyman
Lenny Domnitser wrote: > * If the IDs of two entries from different feeds are the same and the > data is different, this can be one of two things: a DoS attack or an > update to the entry. In either case, show the updated version without > wiping out the old one. What if the two entries a

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-18 Thread Bob Wyman
Lenny Domnitser wrote: > * If the IDs of two entries from different feeds are the same and the > data is different, this can be one of two things: a DoS attack or an > update to the entry. In either case, show the updated version without > wiping out the old one. What if the two entries ar

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-18 Thread Lenny Domnitser
Regarding the potential for a DoS attack with stealing somebody else's GUIDs, no special hacks [1] are needed. Any decent aggregator would trust IDs with a grain of salt. * If the IDs of two entries from different feeds are the same **and the data is the same** show it in only one feed. * If the

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-17 Thread Thomas Broyer
...only about subsets/supersets and duplicates... Antone Roundy wrote: @rel="subset-of" @rel="superset"? We've already got a way to handle aggregations from multiple sources. Do we want to allow people to choose to just use a "secondary-to" link to express that relationship rather than atom:sour

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-14 Thread Antone Roundy
...back in town, and ready to express opinions... Thomas Broyer wrote: Bob Wyman wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: You can point to an alternate feed like this Of course, you can't have two alternates with the same media type... Yes, you can point to an alternate. However, all you are doing at that poin

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-08 Thread Thomas Broyer
Doh! Seems I was very tired yesterday night... Thomas Broyer wrote: > [...] atom:source child element indicating the source feed's Id or URI [...] This already exists with atom:id and atom:link rel="self". However, I'd go for a MUST or at least a SHOULD on the atom:source presence in republish

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Eric Scheid
On 8/4/05 6:17 AM, "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The proposal I made relies on a feed making statements only about > itself. In my proposal, a feed can only say: "I contain copies of these > other feeds. I am a secondary feed." How does this prevent DOS attacks? If I could insert entr

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Eric Scheid
On 8/4/05 6:17 AM, "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A side benefit of having "primary feeds" would be that people would > be more likely to do things like include full "category" data in the entries > they publish rather than publishing entries into specialized feeds as the > way to indic

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bill de hÓra
Bob Wyman wrote: Thomas Broyer wrote in response to Bill de hÓra: If an entry already has an atom:source child, you just republish it as-is. [And, if it doesn't have an atom:source, you insert one.] This is what was agreed, I believe, when the issue was discussed on the list. To do anything more w

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
Thomas Broyer wrote in response to Bill de hÓra: > If an entry already has an atom:source child, you just republish > it as-is. [And, if it doesn't have an atom:source, you insert one.] This is what was agreed, I believe, when the issue was discussed on the list. To do anything more would

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Broyer
Bill de hÓra wrote: Thomas Broyer wrote: Bill de hÓra wrote: Thomas Broyer wrote: Although this doesn't solve the DOS potential, I'd rather go for a new atom:source child element indicating the source feed's Id or URI. When PlanetBar and PlanetFoo republish a feed from Baz, they should "move" th

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bill de hÓra
Thomas Broyer wrote: Bill de hÓra wrote: Thomas Broyer wrote: Although this doesn't solve the DOS potential, I'd rather go for a new atom:source child element indicating the source feed's Id or URI. When PlanetBar and PlanetFoo republish a feed from Baz, they should "move" the entry metadata int

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-07 22:40]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > But it breaks down for the aggregate feeds published by third > > parties. If look at more convoluted examples, it fast turns > > into web of trust territory... > You are correct -- with one caveat. If entries are signed

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Broyer
Bill de hÓra wrote: Thomas Broyer wrote: Although this doesn't solve the DOS potential, I'd rather go for a new atom:source child element indicating the source feed's Id or URI. When PlanetBar and PlanetFoo republish a feed from Baz, they should "move" the entry metadata into an atom:source elem

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
A. Pagaltzis wrote: > But it breaks down for the aggregate feeds published by third parties. > If look at more convoluted examples, it fast turns into web of > trust territory... You are correct -- with one caveat. If entries are signed, which Atom supports, you have a mechanism that allow

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
Tim Bray wrote: >Would the following work: >1. A new feed-level element , any number allowed. > > http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ > http://www.tbray.org/ > http://tbray.org/ I don't like this. Hopefully, I can explain why. The reason is a bit subtle... Tim's proposal relies on

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bill de hÓra
Thomas Broyer wrote: Tim Bray wrote: 1. A new feed-level element , any number allowed. E.g. http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ http://www.tbray.org/ http://tbray.org/ http://www.textuality.com Although this doesn't solve the DOS potential, I'd rather go for a new atom:source child element i

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
Thomas Broyer wrote: > When PlanetBar and PlanetFoo republish a feed from Baz, they should > "move" the entry metadata into an atom:source element. This is actually what we do at PubSub today. You may not be aware that the atom:source element is modeled on the ps:source-feed element that w

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Broyer
Tim Bray wrote: 1. A new feed-level element , any number allowed. E.g. http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ http://www.tbray.org/ http://tbray.org/ http://www.textuality.comAlthough this doesn't solve the DOS potential, I'd rather go for a new atom:source child element indicating the source f

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Graham
I don't think this is within the scope of Atom or any other spec. If you want to differentiate your others, why not invest some time in a decent duplicate detection algorithm like Google did? This is your problem. Graham On 7 Apr 2005, at 7:29 pm, Bob Wyman wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: Establis

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Tim Bray
On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Bob Wyman wrote: Tim suggests that aggregators should be able to rely simply on atom:id to detect duplicates. However, as has often been pointed out, applying this rule in an intermediary like PubSub would simply make PubSub a marvelously efficient tool for denial of

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Broyer
Bob Wyman wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: You can point to an alternate feed like this Of course, you can't have two alternates with the same media type... Yes, you can point to an alternate. However, all you are doing at that point is establishing equivalence between the two. The "alternate" mecha

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-07 19:45]: > I.e. if I didn't like something you published, I would simply > publish something in my blog that had the same atom:id as > something you had published. PubSub and other synthetic feed > producers would then flush your post from the system and

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
Robert Sayre wrote: >> Establishing equivalence only addresses a part of the problem. > Fully agree. I just wanted to point out that a part of the problem is > more solved than your post indicated. My apologies if I made the situation sound more dire than it is. However, even with th

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Robert Sayre
Bob Wyman wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: You can point to an alternate feed like this Of course, you can't have two alternates with the same media type... Yes, you can point to an alternate. However, all you are doing at that point is establishing equivalence between the two. The "alternate" mecha

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Norman Walsh
/ "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | A major cause of duplicates in at least some of the existing | services is the fact that bloggers insist on engaging in the apparently | illogical and wasteful practice of publish multiple versions of their feeds | and thus duplicates of t

RE: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org Subject: Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds... Bob Wyman wrote: > Unfortunately, while RSS and Atom > both contain mechanisms to identify their "HTML" alternates, there isn't any >

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread David Czarnecki
This seems similar to what exists in Really Simply Discoverability in the individual element [1]. - # has 4 required attributes. * "preferred" is a boolean and takes either "true" or "false". The point is to allow weblog software to list all the APIs supported, but choose which one to

Re: One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Robert Sayre
Bob Wyman wrote: Unfortunately, while RSS and Atom both contain mechanisms to identify their "HTML" alternates, there isn't any clear mechanism available to discover alternate feeds. Without responding to the rest of the message, I'll note that this statement is somewhat inaccurate wrt Atom. You c

One reason we have duplicates entries is that we have duplicate feeds...

2005-04-07 Thread Bob Wyman
As many are aware, the Tim Bray[1] and others have recently been railing on the subject of duplicate entries being delivered by aggregation services and/or search engines like PubSub, Technorati, Feedster, etc. As unexpected as this may sound, I am quite confident that when Atom V1.0 is rel