- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:10:22 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 15, 2010, at 2:03 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> If you require import from external formats to give fixed IDs, it >> gives >> potentially nonsensical results. For example, creating an Atom post >> from >> plain text that does not contain an ID would be nonconforming, >> since you >> can't guarantee another Atom system would give the same ID if you >> imported it there. Or if there was a globally defined algorithm for > > That would be a problem if you considered the imported piece of text > to be the "same" once it's imported into different feeds. > > But when you do things like that, you usually put that piece of > information into a context. You can't simply assume that anybody > else that takes the same text is producing the "same" atom element > from it. For instance, given plain text as input, how do you produce > titles and timestamps? > > So in general, I would expect somebody importing plain text to > assign a unique ID upon import, and keep it. If separate exercises of importing the same plain text are allowed to have different IDs, why not separate exercises of importing the same HTML? I'm asking here purely from the spec technicality point of view, not the pragmatic point of view. What in the Atom spec distinguishes importing a piece of plain text (possibly even containing multiple entries) from importing a piece of HTML? >> (2) Should converting the exact same document to Atom multiple times >> with different converters give the same atom:ids? You could handle >> this >> like (1) if the spec defined an exact algorithm for generating Atom >> IDs, >> but that would conflict with (3) below. > > I don't see that as a requirement. What in the Atom spec distinguishes importing multiple times with the same tool, from importing multiple times with different tools? Why would the latter be exempted from the persistent ID requirement, but not the former? Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 09:10:56 UTC