Tim Bray wrote: > If I want to sign an entry and also want to make it available > for aggregation then yes, I'd better put in an atom:source. But > this is inherent in the basic definition of digsig; not something > we need to call out. -Tim Certainly, the chain of reasoning is as clear and logical as you describe. However, it is also very clear that this is precisely the sort of multi-step chain of reasoning that is often overlooked by even the most earnest of implementers. We have many, many indications that significant numbers of RSS/Atom implementers do not, in fact, think much beyond what it takes to get their content into a file. Even the best implementers, and valued participants in this working group, have regularly proved that they don't remember to think out all the systemic issues of syndication. Perhaps it is because there are so few of us that act as intermediaries... The issues are not well understood by those who don't serve this function. Forgive me for suggesting that we call out the obvious. However, this particularly bit of obviousness is not very obvious. In fact, it is probably not "obvious" to most folk until *after* it has been called out. We will help matters greatly by at least providing a recommendation that source elements be inserted in signed entries...
bob wyman