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

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> --- Danny Ayers <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > But what actual benefit is a separate GUID?
>
> The GUID identifies the post so if characteristics of
> the post change but not the post itself the aggregator
> isn't confused and treats it like a new post.

Errm, yes, I was using a device known as a "rhetorical question".

[more reiteration snipped]

> > The GUID can tell you that the two entries are the
> > same *but that's all*. In
> > particular, it offers no way for a system to locate
> > the new copy of the
> > entry.
>
> You really don't know how aggregators work do you?

Grow up.

> GUIDs aren't a mechanism for finding where the feed
> has moved to.

Again, that's what I said. One of the justifications being put forward for
using GUIDs was that it helped when the location of the entry changed.
Sensible flagging of entries as read can be achieved just the same using
URIs, whether or not they can be dereferenced.

HTTP has the 3XX return codes that work
> fine for that purpose and most aggregators support
> them.

If you no longer control the domain, you can't choose the return code.

Cheers,
Danny.