David Powell wrote:
I'm in favour of allowing duplicate ids. This only seems to be a partial solution though:
"Their atom:updated timestamps SHOULD be different"
But what if they are not? What if I want to represent an archive of a feed - maybe mine, maybe someone else's - but the atom:updated dates are the same in two or more entries? I thought it was up to the publisher to decide whether to rev atom:updated.
If you don't update atom:updated (e.g. it's not a "significant" update, fixing typos, etc.), one could (I would) assume you don't want to archive the previous entry "state".
There are very few chances that you "significantly" update an entry with the same second (that's the only way to get to the same atom:updated value if the "time-secfrac" is not provided), so you shouldn't have to track "versions" of an entry with the same atom:updated values.
So you can have a MUST instead of your SHOULD.
-- Thomas Broyer
