On 5/19/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Park has proposed that we loosen the existing language to > permit duplicate ids in the case where the entries have atom:source > elements which identify different URI's in "self" links. I support > this compromise and believe it should be supported by the WG and > incorporated into the Atom Draft.
I believe it makes sense to give the notional "atoms" (entries) individual identifiers which will be preserved globally, irrespective of the source, irrespective of where the entries are found - so yes, duplicate IDs in a feed seem an acceptable scenario. I don't personally care how it's done, but a reference back from the feed document to the URI from whence it is begetted is pretty essential for the easier one-click subscription strategies, and should come in handy later for aggregate-republish processing. I think a reference back to the source (original better, intermediate better than nothing) is also desirable to help reduce duplicate posts appearing in any end-of-chain UI. Take this scenario - two entries identical in every respect *except* for their ID. Any resource on the Web may have any number of different URIs, which suggests any entry might /potentially/ have any number of IDs. Should the two entries be allowed in the same feed? If you change the name of an entry, do you change its nature? Sorry, slipping, it's a bit late here - scratch the philosophy, ;-) Basically I reckon duplicate IDs in a feed are ok - leave it to the (final or intermediate) consumer to filter out if required according to local rules/heuristics. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
