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

Re: ID wording

To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ID wording
From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:16:14 +0200
Cc: Atom-Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
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>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Opera M2/7.54 (Win32, build 3865)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:57:48 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Does this match what people feel was the general consensus?

Yes, very much so. But I'm not sure if any of your bullets include that the ID must be absolute, and not relative? If that is the canonicalization-part, then I feel this should be mentioned explicitly and be a MUST, not SHOULD. Absolute versus relative URI's as ID's is indeed a (big) interoperability issue.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        asbjornu@xxxxxxxxxxx
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ID wording
  - From: Julian Reschke

References:
- ID wording
  - From: Paul Hoffman / IMC

Prev by Date: Striping Atom (was Re: Extensibility in Syndication formats)
Next by Date: Re: ID wording
Previous by thread: Re: ID wording
Next by thread: Re: ID wording
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread