Tim Bray directs the editors to insert the following words:
"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry and Atom Processors
MUST treat them as such."
It is a long standing and valued tradition in the IETF that
Standards Track RFC's MUST NOT impose constraints on applications unless
such constraints relate to issues of interoperability. Thus, while it is
entirely appropriate for the specification to state that "multiple
atom:entry elements with the same atom:id ... describe the same entry" it is
NOT appropriate to state how Atom Processors must treat such elements. The
text should read simply:
"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry."
The appropriate handling of multiple instances of the "same entry"
is a matter which is the solely up to the discretion of Atom Processors
since variances in such handling do not impact interoperablity. One can
imagine that various developers will make different decisions in duplicate
handling policies. Some processors might even allow their end-users to
decide the handling policies. By making such decisions, developers will
either enhance or detract from the utility of the overall solutions they
develop -- but, it is not up to the IETF to direct what decisions should be
made in this case.
Restating this in a manner perhaps more friendly to those who
declare themselves as "bits on the wire" people: The specification should
specify the meaning of the bits on the wire -- not what one does with the
bits after receiving them.
bob wyman
