On 19 May 2005, at 9:38 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
What should we do? One way to solve this is to require "id" *and* update Graham's original proposal accordingly, *and* incorporate it into the next (and presumably final draft).
The original proposal actually relied on ids: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDuplicateIDWithSource
Just to be clear, the idea wasn't that an entry would have a concatenated entry:id-source:id as its identifier. The entry:id would still be primary, its just multiple versions received from different sources could be represented.
If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
an Atom Feed document, they represent the same entry.
It seems to me that this does not solve the problem that Bob described. More specifically, if pubsub were to republish data from TheServerSide, Artima, or other places, then the "erasure" that Bob fears would come to pass.
I don't really believe this to be so. An aggregator can treat them as the same entry without having one overwrite the other. It can easily present to the user "Here's the version from Site A" and "Here's the version from Site B". That was kind of the idea of PaceDuplicateIDWithSource. Of course, the atom:source element is as fakeable as the entry's id. The only reliable origin is the URI it was directly fetched from.
Oh, and compulsory feed:ids are fine with me. Certainly better than the hybrid proposals.
Graham
