Re: Roll-up of proposed changes to atompub-format section 5

[Antone Roundy <antone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2005, at 01:09  PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Bob Wyman <bobwyman@xxxxxxxxxx> [2005-07-05 19:30]:
> > Antone Roundy wrote:
> > > "When signing individual entries that do not contain an
> > > atom:source element, be aware that aggregators inserting an
> > > atom:source element will be unable to retain the signature. For this
> > > reason, publishers might consider including an atom:source element in
> > > all individually signed entries."
> > 	+1
> +1 as well. It is one of those obvious-in-hindsight things that
> the spec would do well to point out to implementors in advance.
>
> If putting this into the spec would require a delay, then I
> suppose we’ll have to end up living with a spec that could have
> been more explicit. This clarification is not worth slowing
> things down for.

Agreed.  If we can get it in without delaying things, I'm all for it.  
But if not, then I can live without it.  It doesn't actually change 
anything--just reduces the probability of the issue being overlooked.