On 1/5/05 6:34 AM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say someone writes a quick PHP script that doesn't keep any state and
loops through the entries to display them on a web page. They'll have
different results than a well-written desktop aggregator.
a well written aggregator may well
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-04-30 22:15]:
Remove the bullet point that reads
{{{ atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain atom:entry elements
with identical atom:id values. }}}
Add a paragraph after the list that reads
{{{
Atom Processors use the atom:id element found in Atom
On 2/5/05 1:51 AM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would +1 allowing identical IDs if it was required that the
entries sharing an ID had different sources.
perhaps we need to explain the concept of 'entries' (as resources), as
distinct from entrys (as representations), and explain
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-01 18:45]:
perhaps we need to explain the concept of 'entries' (as
resources), as distinct from entrys (as representations), and
explain that 'entries' must have unique IDs, and that the
atom:id element of any atom:entry ties it back to the
'entry'
On 1 May 2005, at 18:18, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/5/05 1:51 AM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would +1 allowing identical IDs if it was required that the
entries sharing an ID had different sources.
perhaps we need to explain the concept of 'entries' (as resources), as
distinct from
John Panzer wrote:
Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/5/05 1:51 AM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would +1 allowing identical IDs if it was required that the
entries sharing an ID had different sources.
perhaps we need to explain the concept of 'entries' (as resources), as
distinct from entrys (as
On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 02:02 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
The proposed compromise to allow duplicate IDs in feeds, on the
condition that a source element is present, doesn't address the
problem of quick scripts that probably won't group duplicate IDs.
I don't understand the last part of this
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/30/05, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 02:02 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
The proposed compromise to allow duplicate IDs in feeds, on the
condition that a source element is present, doesn't address the
problem of quick scripts that
Robert Sayre wrote:
compliant processors will still differ from one-off hacks.
Why in the world are we letting one-off hacks influence the design
of Atom? That strikes me as rather unwise. We aren't here to make life easy
for script-kiddies. We're here to design a format that allows us
On 4/30/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The spec should STRONGLY state that each entry must have a unique
atom id. The point of the require source language is not to remove the
requirement for uniqueness but rather to provide a more useful way of doing
cross-feed determination
10 matches
Mail list logo
