On May 18, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
There seemed to be consensus that feeds needed something to identify
them. What there wasn't consensus on is which element should be
that identifier. The solution selected was to make none of the
identifiers required - something I don't think has much support, and
furthermore creates problems with the ability to cite a source.
Paul and I talked this over, and while we're not sure (the email trail was confusing) Sam may be right; so let's find out. Note that it seems pretty clear that the cost of requiring atom:id is nearly zero, since anyone who's generating Atom has to have an ID generator around for entries. So, let's find out if Sam is right:
<co-chair-mode>
We suggest that there may be WG consensus in favor of changing the format spec to make atom:id a required child of atom:feed. (Text not provided, we trust the editors to figure out the correct way to say this). Please indicate agreement or disagreement with this proposition in the next day or two.
</co-chair-mode>
