The abstract says: This specification adds mechanisms to the Atom Syndication Format which Atom Feed publishers can use to explicitly identify Atom entries that have been removed from an Atom feed.
Thus, it appears that the document is specific to "feed" publishers and doesn't give proper consideration to those that publish Atom Entry Documents. I would reword this as follows (or something similar): "This specification adds mechanisms to the Atom Syndication Format which publishers of Atom Feed and Entry documents can use to explicitly identify Atom entries that have been removed." A similar edit would be appropriate for "Section 1, The Introduction" which seems overly focused on "feeds". Section 4 "Deleted Entry Document": Although it is reasonable that a deleted-entry element, when contained in a feed, MAY contain an atom:source element (since it is assumed that the enclosing feed document is the entry's source), I think that we should depart from the wording of the base Atom Syntax here and say that when a deleted-entry element appears in a Feed document other than its source feed or when it comprises a Deleted Entry Document, that the deleted-entry really *MUST* contain an atom:source. Personally, I would be very pleased if you could add some non-normative text that makes it clear that a deleted-entry is "informational" rather than "imperative." I am concerned that we will see people complaining and potentially even suing in court, when some service fails to "delete" some entry that is particularly embarrassing or that otherwise continues to distribute information that some publisher would prefer to have removed from the system. To those of us close to this issue, it may be obvious that a standard like this cannot impose legally enforceable requirements on people, however, we need to recognize that the world into which our work flows is one populated not only by those of good will and knowledge but also by idiots, twits, and litigious fools... It is best to preemptively disable or mute some of the inevitable silliness by ensuring that the standard itself tells the fools to stifle themselves... (In slightly more polite terms, of course...) bob wyman On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, looking over the Atom Tombstones draft, I cannot see any further > edits that need to be made. Is it done? Ready to push for last call? > > -- > - James Snell > http://www.snellspace.com > [email protected] > >
