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.
-1 to the Pace.
Like Robert, I believe that this Pace breaks the feed format. Here is a *recent* example of somebody who associated the same id (in this case rdf:about) with different entries:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10636557
I would prefer a solution whereby if somebody wants to include versions of entries into a feed they need to include a version specific identifier. Or that we define a third type of Atom document in section 2, namely an atom:archive.
- Sam Ruby
