On Feb 1, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Anyone who subscribes to aggregations (for example, I subscribe to the planetsun.org aggregated feed), is used to seeing the same entry over and over and over again. This problem is only going to get worse. With Atom's ID semantics and compulsory <updated> timestamp, I would hope that my aggregator would have a chance of not showing me the same entry unless it's got a later timestamp than what I've seen. -Tim
The problem is that the requirement you suggested removes their ability to use common sense in dealing with same-ID entries and remain compliant with the format. You don't need to tell aggregators how to implement their trust mechanism. Just tell them what the format means
Uh... right. What are we supposed to be disagreeing about? I would think that a hint in the spec pointing out how you can use atom:id/atom:updated to improve handling of dupes in aggregated feeds couldn't hurt, I'm convinced that saying anything normative about what they should do won't help. -Tim
