On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: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.
Okay, the forwarded message has it's own all-in-one-element identifier. This sounds useful...except that someone may accidentally or intentionally duplicate that identifier too.
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.
Maybe I am missing something, but if so...well, by definition, I'm not seeing it. Let's look at an example. Say your aggregator sees these in different feeds:
<feed>
<id>foo:foo</id>
<entry>
<id>foo:bar</id>
<title>I'm the real thing</title>
</entry>
</feed><feed>
<id>bar:bar</id>
<entry>
<id>bar:foo</id>
<source>
<id>foo:foo</id>
<original>foo:bar</original>
</source>
<title>I may be an imposter</title>
</title>
</feed>Do you display one or both? How would your decision making process differ from if you were to see the following in the second case?
<feed>
<id>bar:bar</id>
<entry>
<id>foo:bar</id>
<source>
<id>foo:foo</id>
</source>
<title>I may be an imposter</title>
</title>
</feed>And what if we added a third case?
<feed>
<id>qwerty:bar</id>
<entry>
<id>bar:foo</id>
<source>
<id>foo:foo</id>
<original>foo:bar</original>
</source>
<title>I'm definitely an imposter</title>
</title>
</feed>Yeah, they think they are, or at least claim to think so. But isn't that the same thing that is stated if you see the following in two feeds?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.
<feed>
<id>bar:bar</id>
<entry>
<id>foo:bar</id>
<source>
<id>foo:foo</id>
</source>
<title>I may be an imposter</title>
</title>
</feed>This says that this feed is (or at least claims it is) forwarding the entry with the id "foo:bar" from the feed "foo:foo".
I am honestly trying to see more in this, but as yet, I don't.
