Wednesday, April 12, 2006, 1:29:00 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-12 13:40]: >> Reasonable implementations will probably just store the latest >> versions of feed and entry metadata, something like this: > Of course, what they *should* do is use `atom:source` so that > they can preserve all of the feed metadata, including RFC4287 > Sec.6 extensions: Using atom:source is fair enough for representing loose entries, but I think it is overkill for representing entries in the context of a known feed, where the vast majority of feed metadata is going to be the same for each entry. I believe feed metadata to be about feeds, and entry metadata to be about entries. Two separate entities, with their own life-cycle. There is one feed, if I change the title of it, then the feed title should change. I don't expect it to change back to the old title whenever I look at older entries. Feed documents are just an implementation detail of the most popular way of passing this information around. -- Dave
