[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)

To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)
From: James Aylett <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:23:18 +0000
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: James Aylett <james@tartarus.org>, atom-syntax@imc.org
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:28:54AM -0800, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> GUIDs aren't a mechanism for finding where the feed has moved
> to. HTTP has the 3XX return codes that work fine for that purpose
> and most aggregators support them.

Out of interest, does anyone know how many people that aren't alpha
geeks bother to use this rather than just breaking their old URIs? Do
any blog tools that allow migration from previous tools provide
mechanisms for doing this automatically?

James

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett                                                  xapian.org
  james@xxxxxxxxxxxx                               uncertaintydivision.org

References:
- RE: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)
  - From: Danny Ayers
- RE: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)
  - From: Dare Obasanjo

Prev by Date: Re: <id> and <link> are broken!
Previous by thread: RE: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)
Next by thread: Re: <id> and <link> are broken! (was RE: base and atom:id)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread