On Apr 3, 2005 11:59 PM, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul Hoffman wrote: > > > > > What is the technical reasons for the SHOULDs and MUSTs? Where is the > > interoperability issues within the protocol (not with readers that don't > > know what the protocol looks like)? What are the potentials for causing > > harm? I'm not saying there are none; I'm saying let's choose our levels > > based on what we are supposed to be choosing from. > > If none of them are MUST, there is no social recourse when tracking down > problems or seeking social understanding. Where did this feed come from? > Who makes alternates? What's this all about?
+1 Of course, if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not the identifier and it falls to atom:id then we may end up having to add more verbage to the spec. For example, today some feeds are full-content, others are abbreviated. If I produce both kinds of feeds, do I use the same atom:id for both? What if one feed is delivered via email and the other via HTTP, should they both use the same atom:id? -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
