Ok, so this makes sense and I've received other input that the id and
when attributes should be elements instead. Given this, perhaps the
deleted-entry should look something like this instead:
<at:deleted-entry>
<atom:id>tag:example.org,2006:someentry</atom:id><--required-->
<atom:updated>2005-01-27T12:12:12Z</atom:updated><--required-->
<atom:author><atom:name>James</atom:name></atom:author><--optional-->
<atom:summary>comment spam</atom:summary><--optional-->
</at:deleted-entry>
In a feed, these would appear mixed in with atom:entry elements:
<feed>
...
<entry>...</entry>
<entry>...</entry>
<at:deleted-entry>
<id>tag:example.org,2006:someentry</id>
<updated>2006-01-27T12:12:12Z</updated>
</at:deleted-entry>
<entry>...</entry>
...
</feed>
Is this better?
- James
James Holderness wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
One question: what's a reasonable length of time to keep the
deleted-entry elements in a feed? We don't really want to keep those
things around forever.
Actually I think I probably would recommend keeping them forever. Just
treat them like any other entry. If they fall out the bottom of the feed
window that's ok, but if the server implements next/previous links to
history feeds, then the tombstone could still be found in the archives.
Anything else is just guessing. You really can't tell how regularly a
user might update from your feed. Now if you don't support history then
it's just tough luck - the fact that they've missed out on entries is
more of a problem than missing out on deletions. However, if you do
support history, it would be a shame not to support tombstones in that
history as well.
Anyway, that's my preference. Not necessarily a SHOULD recommendation -
just my personal opinion.
Regards
James
