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 16:19:15 -0700
Message-ID: <t2i3b31caf91004151619j10feb5c4lfba41a04b4c8ffa6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Tab wrote:
> So, summary of the discussion so far:

Excellent summary, thanks Tab.

> So, possible resolutions? There are two reasonable ones:
>
> 1. The guarantee of same-ID-for-same-content is good enough.
[...]
> 2. The guarantee of same-ID-for-same-content isn't good enough.
[...]
> I believe Sam and Julian are suggesting #2.  Hober seems to be
> suggesting #2 as well.  Ian is suggesting #1[...]

I actually prefer #1 too, but am willing to meet Julian half-way
(dropping <entry>s with unstable IDs). I'm opposed to not generating an
Atom feed at all in such cases, which is what Julian originally
proposed:

[[
"The same absolute URL must be generated for each run of this algorithm
when given the same input. If this requirement can not be fulfilled,
then generating a valid Atom feed is not possible and this algorithm
should be aborted."
]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0193.html

Julian wrote:
> Anyway, we already have two change proposals; one for dropping the
> section completely, one for fixing just the two issues I spotted. Do
> you want to make a third one?

Sure. I've thrown together such a draft CP; it's here on the HTML WG
wiki if anyone else would like to contribute to it:

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-86


Ted
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 23:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC