* David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-03 11:20]: > Wednesday, May 3, 2006, 6:48:55 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Such URIs have a much more fundamental problem -- they don't > > refer to a stable set of entries, and therefore only act as a > > snapshot of the *current* feed, chopped up into chunks. If > > the feed changes between accesses, the client will be in an > > inconsistent state. The client also has to walk through all > > of the pages every time it fetches the feed; it can't cache > > them -- which is a primary requirement for feed history. > > I think it would be worth recommending the use of stable URIs > in the draft.
Considering how fundamental stable URIs are to the FH extension and how much of the previous discussion has revolved around them, I’m surprised there isn’t already language to that effect in the text. In fact, I would have expected a SHOULD or two on this subject. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
