On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1. > > I don't see that this solves any problem.
I suggest you reread it. Your analysis is deeply flawed. > It may help people avoid > accidentally generating invalid feeds (if we stick to not to allowing > duplication of atom:id within a feed), but it does it by simply > shunting the issue off into a different element which doesn't have > duplication constraints. Incorrect. Think harder about what PubSub services do. They take an entry, and munge it (people like that). They move the feed data to atom:source, and probably add their own extension elements to it. I think they are "forwarding" a message. My proposal preserves the identity of the original message, while requiring the service to mint an identifier for its forwarded message. > It doesn't address the DOS problem--neither > accidental nor intentional. Oh yes it does. Each entry's provenance is documented. The data format accurately states that the intermediary has munged the original entry. > And it doesn't make it any easier to > determine whether or not entries in different feeds with the same > atom:id are really the same entry or not. In fact, it just complicates > the task by requiring the inspection of two elements instead of one. Incorrect. What it does is explicitly state that two different feeds think they are fowarding the same entry. Robert Sayre
