On 5 Feb 2005, at 19:48, Robert Sayre wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:
Neither of these is equivalent to atom:id--according to this text, the {item_uri} and rdf:about for a particular item could change each time you transmit the feed. Whether we accept this Pace or not, that is not what is intend for atom:id. Could you explain how these are in any way relevant to this Pace?
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. We don't get to make up how syndication works. I understand the thinking behind your proposal, but it *doesn't work*.
Part of our charter is to define a format suitable for archiving feeds.
Right, and breaking the feed format isn't the way to do it. Since you're advocating versioning, what are your plans for versioning the state of the feed itself? What if the title changes? It would be better to archive a series of feed documents.
Oh. I think here there are two elements to answer this:
1. A feed is not something that can be archived. This is to
do with a feed properly speaking being at the interaction 2. the feed head (which is in fact just a special entry that
describes the feed) can have versions just like any other
entry. These can be identified as being different version
of the same entry by their id attribute, just as any other
entry can.Henry Story
Robert Sayre
