Over here in the thread with technical commentary,
Graham wrote:
On 1 Feb 2005, at 3:10 am, Martin Duerst wrote:
1) switch sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 to make clear that comparison of IDs is the most important operation.
Yes.
I eliminated 3.5.1 as a distinct entity in this proposed edit: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12807.html
That got the +1 from Paul and Tim (who seemed to be on opposing sides... I don't care if we are using IRIs). None of the changes proposed below obsolete that edit. I will put it on the wiki as a "Pace" if that's what's needed.
This makes it clear that we are talking about "here is how you do it", rather than "here's one way to do it".
We might be treading on toes making that assertion.
I can't think of anyone in this thread that would object. Esp if we are using IRIs.
4) Add a sentence saying something like "Feeds or Entries are identical if their IDs compare identical.". Seems obvious, but isn't stated anywhere.
No. Feeds/entries with the same id are different versions or instances of a common ancestor. They are not "the same".
Martin is correct, IMHO. A URI (or GUID, for that matter) identifies *one* resource. We don't get to change that. OTOH, I don't think it will happen unless there is a commonly seen need for it to happen, so it seems like a non-issue.
5) Add a note saying something like "Comparison functions provided by many URI classes/implementations make additional assumptions about equality that are not true for Identity Constructs. Atom processors therefore should use simple string functions for comparing Identity Constructs." I think such a note could be a good balance to the normalization advice.
Yes, though I don't like that wording.
Agree.
Robert Sayre
