On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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".
+1 > 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. > I disagree. There may be no source feed at all... and therefore no reason for 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...) Agreed. > 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] >> > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [email protected]
