On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
The level of traffic in recent days have been ferocious, and reading
through it, we observe the WG has consensus on changing the format
draft in a surprisingly small number of areas. Here they are:
All looks good (or at least entirely acceptable) to me. One question
though:
3. Change to previous consensus call. The phrase that begins "If
multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in an
Atom Feed document, they describe the same empty..." loses the
language about how software MUST treat them as such.
A few of people appeared to support[1][2] this[0]:
* State that multiple entries originating in the same feed with the
same atom:id are instances of the same entry [yes, they're SUPPOSED to
be, even "REQUIRED" to be universally unique, but let's live in the
real world]
...but there was no Pace written (oops), and little or no comment
directed specifically toward this detail, either for or against. This
wording got no response when suggested[3] two days ago:
"If multiple atom:entry elements originating in the same Atom feed have
the same atom:id value, whether they exist simultaneously in one
document or in different instances of the feed document, they describe
the same entry."
I'm going to write a Pace right now, in case that will make any
difference. Comments?
Antone
[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15517.html
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15518.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15526.html
[3] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15644.html
