-1
An entry only needs one identifier. The way to solve this problem (if
it needs solving) is allowing duplicate ids under some or all
circumstances.
Graham
On 5/10/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 May 2005, at 1:22 am, Robert Sayre wrote:
Hmm. I'd be curious to hear what you think the problem is. Every
system I can think of that does forwarding or versioning assigns
multiple identifiers. Perhaps you have an example system in mind?
Tim Bray wrote:
+1
I'm not 100% convinced it solves the problems Rob says it does, but it
seems cheap, lightweight, and unlikely to cause any harm. -Tim
I'm growing increasingly comfortable with the concept of allowing
redistributors to assign new ids as long as they track the original
(i.e.:
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 05:21 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, they think they are, or at least claim to think so. But isn't
that the same thing that is stated if you see the following in two
feeds?
feed
idbar:bar/id
entry
-1.
I don't see that this solves any problem. It may help people avoid
accidentally generating invalid feeds (if we stick to not to allowing
duplication of atom:id within a feed), but it does it by simply
shunting the issue off into a different element which doesn't have
duplication
On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1.
I don't see that this solves any problem.
I suggest you reread it. Your analysis is deeply flawed.
It may help people avoid
accidentally generating invalid feeds (if we stick to not to allowing
duplication of atom:id within a
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may help people avoid
accidentally generating invalid feeds (if we stick to not to allowing
duplication of atom:id within a feed), but it does it by simply
shunting the issue off into a
+1
I'm not 100% convinced it solves the problems Rob says it does, but it
seems cheap, lightweight, and unlikely to cause any harm. -Tim
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOriginalAttribute
On 5/3/05, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really happy with this.
I found Martin's comments (copied in full below) to be accurate. So, I
thought I would try another approach. Comments, suggestions, and
alterations
