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

On 15.04.2010 01:08, Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>>> Basically making this a MUST would lead to implementations having to
>>> violate the spec to do anything useful. When we require that
>>> implementations violate the spec, we lead to them ignoring the spec
>>> even when it's not necessary.
>> Based on my experience with feeds (predating Atom), this part of the
>> spec will not be ignored.  Users will write bug reports against the
>> software that implements the algorithm.
> If a feed producer has to invent an ID from nothing, and doesn't know what
> ID it used in the past, yet the spec uses "MUST" here, how exactly can it
> do anything _but_ ignore the spec?

Either you store the ID with the item, or you derive the ID from 
something sufficiently unique in the set of items, or ... you don't 
produce an Atom feed.

What the Atom spec is the result of VERY long discussions, and when it 
says MUST then it's because the Working Group really wanted it that way.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 08:32:48 UTC