Re: Tombstones

["Joe Gregorio" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 18, 2007 1:18 PM, Brian Smith <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Joe Gregorio wrote:
> > >  However, if the system is doing a hard-delete and is only
> > > preserving the id of items that have been deleted, it does
> > > not make any sense to represent those deleted items using
> > > the atom:entry element and doing so runs the risk of
> > > confusing certain clients into thinking that they're
> > > looking at some piece of content that still actually
> > > exists on the server.
> >
> > Sorry, that's a straw-man, these are completely different
> > feeds living at different URIs, there's no chance of
> > "confusing certain clients".
>
> I agree that there are ways to avoid the confusion. But, the latency
> from having to sync with the extra feed is unacceptable,

To whom? And who is bearing the burden of your trade-off?
Most aggregators will ignore the 'deleted' status of an entry
and all those deleted entries will just be wasted bandwidth.

> especially when
> multiplied by dozens or hundreds of feeds.

There's no reason you couldn't collapse multiple
trash feeds into a single feed, all the atom:ids are
universally unique.

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org