Graham, the issue here is that the spec can be interpreted in a number of ways, which is not good. You seem to agree with that below, correct?
Separately, there's the issue of what it *should* say. Tim and now you say that you have a good idea of what you want it to say; I'd be very interested to see how you'd specify that. Can you suggest some spec text?
On Feb 4, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Graham wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005, at 8:44 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I.e., just because it's a "permanent, universally unique identifier" doesn't mean you're not able to use it twice to talk about a single entry;
I disagree, as I've said before. The only literal interpretation is that you can't serve the same entry twice with the same id. We know it doesn't mean that, but the spec just doesn't define in which axis "unique" is meant to apply.
Graham
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
