Re: Don't make Feed Extensions inherit!

[David Powell <djpowell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wednesday, April 12, 2006, 1:29:00 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:

> * David Powell <djpowell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-04-12 13:40]:
>> Reasonable implementations will probably just store the latest
>> versions of feed and entry metadata, something like this:

> Of course, what they *should* do is use `atom:source` so that
> they can preserve all of the feed metadata, including RFC4287
> Sec.6 extensions:

Using atom:source is fair enough for representing loose entries, but I
think it is overkill for representing entries in the context of a
known feed, where the vast majority of feed metadata is going to be
the same for each entry.

I believe feed metadata to be about feeds, and entry metadata to be
about entries. Two separate entities, with their own life-cycle. There
is one feed, if I change the title of it, then the feed title should
change.  I don't expect it to change back to the old title whenever I
look at older entries.

Feed documents are just an implementation detail of the most popular
way of passing this information around.

-- 
Dave