* Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-07 21:30]: > Can/Should this subset be commonly known? It seems to me that > it is important enough to the atom-ecosphere that it might even > make sense to have it in the spec as an important > interoperability note. i.e. "Entries will be considered > duplicates if...."
Yes, absolutely, implementors should be made aware of such issues. I donât know if it is in the scope of the Atom format to specify normative rules for when to consider entries duplicates â and more importantly, when not to â, though. F.ex, entries maliciously published with someone elseâs entry ID will not actually constitute a DOS attack for consumers whose aggregator maintains a history of previously seen versions of an entry. Other approaches may also form. Generally, practice will probably lead implementors to pick among various approaches the one best suited to their respective needs. I donât believe we can forsee all of these, so letâs not try to. The Atom format should specify hooks (such as the atom:source subelement Thomas suggested, possibly?) which would allow trust models or other coping mechanisms to be implemented, but leave their precise nature to the discreetion of implementors after bringing the potential problems to attention. Regards, -- Aristotle
