On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
I'm going to write a Pace right now, in case that will make any
difference.
Here it is--now comments on that particular detail can be directed at a
proper Pace:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDuplicateIdsEntryOrigin
== Abstract ==
State the atom:entries from the same feed with the same ID are the same
entry, whether simulateously in the feed document or not.
== Status ==
New
== Rationale ==
* The accepted language for allowing duplicate IDs in a feed document
speaks only multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id
describing the same entry if they exist in the same document--of
course, we intend for them to describe the same entry whether they're
simultaneously in the feed document or not
* The accepted language does not speak of the origin feed of the
entries. Ideally, an atom:id should be univerally unique to one entry
resource, and we rightly require publishers to mint them with that
goal. However, in reality, malicious or undereducted publishers might
duplicate the IDs of others. Therefore, it is proposed to modify the
specification to state that the atom:entry elements describe the same
entry (resource) if they originate in the same feed.
* Aggregators wishing to protect against DOS attacks are not unlikely
to perform some sort of safety checks to detect malicious atom:id
duplication, regardless of whether the specification "authorizes" them
to or not.
== Proposal ==
in format-08:
1. Remove this bullet point from 4.1.1:
atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain atom:entry elements with identical
atom:id values.
2. Add the following paragraph, either to atom:entry or atom:feed, at
the editors' discretion (instead of the first sentence proposed by
PaceAllowDuplicateIDs, if accepted):
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.
== Impacts ==
* Aggregators wishing to both perform duplicate detection and protect
against DOS attacks will be justified by the specification in applying
their judgement regarding whether entries with the same atom:id come
from the same source or not.
== Notes ==
* Because we are unlikely to agree on a method for determining whether
the atom:entry elements originate in the same feed or not, no
particular method will be specified.
* The proposed language does not preclude the possibility of
aggregators applying their own judgement regarding whether two
atom:entry elements with the same atom:id which originate in different
feeds might describe the same entry resource, which they might if
someone posts the same to entry to, for example, a category feed and a
feed of all their categories, and doesn't present one as having been
aggregated from the other by including an atom:source element.
