On Sunday, February 6, 2005, at 09:35 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Graham wrote:Okay, so we are punting on defining a way to archive the changing state of feed/head.On 6 Feb 2005, at 3:39 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:If you produce feeds that contain multiple entries with the same id, there will be people who misunderstand such documents.Solution:
I do believe that there needs to be some way to say "this is not a feed, but an archive".
A new atom:archive top level element with normal head and entry children. Difference is multiple instances of entries are allowed with the same id. Each is distinguished by a new atom:version date, that has no semantics other than determining which instance is the newest. Meanwhile, atom:version and multiple instances are explicitly banned from atom:feed.
?
Works for me.
Presumably, atom:entry elements can have at most one atom:version child element. But, are atom:version elements be required in atom:archives?
Making something like the above semi-concrete:
<archive>
<head>
...
</head>
<entry>
<id revision="3">foo:bar/a</id>
...
</entry>
<entry>
<id revision="2">foo:bar/a</id>
...
</entry>
<entry>
<id revision="1">foo:bar/a</id>
...
</entry>
...
</archive>...where @revision is a number whose only requirement is that the number for a later revision be greater than the number for an earlier revision, but skipping numbers is allowed.
@revision could go in <entry> instead of <id>, or could be <revision>.
We're at the deadline for paces. Someone who wants something like this should write one today.
