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

"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:


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC