On 19 May 2005, at 23:02, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/19/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, breaking any link in my complicated chain of logic above
would cause the whole argument to collapse, which would be fine
with me.
Maybe the requirement is useless.
"If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in
an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry and software MUST
treat them as such."
"MUST treat them as such" isn't particularly meaningful, and two
atom:entry elements occuring anywhere are supposed to be describing
the same entry. When I get CCed on an atom-syntax message, some of my
email programs show two messages, and some show one. It's a
security/annoyance trade-off, and I don't see why the format should be
making that decision.
+1
How you deal with different representations of entries with the same
id is
up to the software and user's discretion. Some software may want to keep
a full history of all the representations, some may only be able to
keep the
latest. Some users may wish to see all represenations others may wish
to see
only some of them. The same user may have different preferences at
different times.
The requirement of treating entries with the same id as the same does
not add
anything more than saying that the entries are representations of the
id resources.
Henry Story
