On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:02 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > You are, of course, correct. How about saying that "if there is a source feed, you MUST provide 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...) > > 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] >
