On Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 06:25 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
I'd be perfectly happy with not allowing atom:id to be repeated in a <feed> or the hypothetical <aggregation> if we had an <archive> element which acts exactly like <aggregation> except that atom:id may be repeated.Oops, correction: I'd be perfectly happy with not allowing atom:id to be repeated in an Atom Feed Document or the hypothetical Atom Aggregation Document if we had an Atom Archive Document type (with an <atom:archive> element as its document element) which acts exactly like an Atom Aggregation Document, except that the atom:ids of the <feed>s and <entry>s in it could be repeated. I wouldn't particularly care whether an Atom Archive Document were allowed to archive multiple feeds, or whether it were limited to archiving a single feed (ie., all of it's <feed>s would be required to have the same <id>).
