W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: change proposal for issue-86, was: ISSUE-86 - atom-id-stability - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:17:55 -0700
Message-ID: <r2x3b31caf91004151117uf106d929rc9003044bce5dce1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Sam wrote:
>>> One possible way to address this is for section 5.5.3, step 15,
>>> substep 9, otherwise clause be modified to throw an
>>> INVALID_STATE_ERR exception if it is not possible to generate an
>>> entry id in a way that ensures uniqueness.

I replied:
>> Suppose there's an HTML document with several<article>s, only one of
>> which triggers the "otherwise" clause of step 15, substep 9. Instead
>> of throwing an exception and aborting--not producing any feed at
>> all--why not just leave out that one problematic<atom:entry> from the
>> resulting feed? So instead of "or ... you don't produce an Atom
>> feed," we don't produce an Atom *entry* for that specific<article>.

Sam replied:
> Sounds plausible. This, however, suggests that algorithm isn't fully
> "baked" yet[...]

I wouldn't read that much into it. This algorithm, like everything else
in the spec, has room for improvement. I think my suggestion above might
be such an improvement. Let's wait to see if Ian agrees to change the
algorithm as I've suggested. If he does, ISSUE-86 would become a
non-issue.


Ted
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 18:18:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT