* Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-14 23:00]: > If any additional wording is necessary, then it should be > explicit that it only relates to the media type of > 'application/atom+xml'. It is, in my opinion, redundant to say > this because ID reference for a application/atom+xml document > is the Atom Entry ID. Other media types would use their own > forms of identifiers.
Well yes, you’re right. But I’d really want to see at least *some* explicit mention of using Atom IDs as idrefs somewhere in the spec. However redundant it may seem, I’d feel more comfortable if it wasn’t merely implied. F.ex., say you’re replying to one of Tim’s ongoing entries. This means @idref will be a HTTP URI. If someone views source and concludes he should put the permalink in there, what would you tell them? It works with Tim’s feed and there’s nothing in the spec which says what they’re doing is wrong either. But if consumers expect entry IDs in there, it will fail if they start replying to feeds using some other form of URI for their IDs. This clearly is an interoperability issue. In fact, now that I think about it, it seems that recognising that this extension should be applicable beyond Atom doesn’t mean it should be less explicit about what to use for identifiers, but rather should be more so: it should explicitly mention what should be used as an identifiert when replying to items from RSS feeds as well. (Eg. use the GUID as an idref when available, otherwise use the permalink as a href.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
