Tim Bray wrote:
> Still -1, despite Bob's arguments, at least in part because we have
> no idea what kind of applications are going to be using signed
> entries and we shouldn't try to micromanage a future we don't
> understand. -Tim
We *DO* know that PubSub will support signed entries in the
future... And, we know that PubSub and any service like it will be forced to
discard signatures on any signed entries that do not have source elements in
them. Given that at least some would consider it likely that such services
will not only remain popular but grow in popularity in the future, why is it
such a terrible thing to provide an optional recommendation that people
address the needs of these services?
I find it hard to imagine what harm could be done by providing this
recommendation. Any application written in the future is already forced to
handle entries with source elements since these elements are permitted by
the Atom specification as it stands now. Thus, simply recommending that
people do what they are already permitted to do just doesn't seem to
threaten harm to unspecified future applications -- yet, it would clearly
accomplish some good in the case of the known applications.
What is the utility of signed entries if not to facilitate the
copying of entries between feeds? Why sign individual elements unless they
are likely to be removed from their original context? If entries are not to
be copied, then feed signatures are all that is necessary and would result
in smaller, more bandwidth-efficient feeds.
bob wyman
