- From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:19:15 -0700
- 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