[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atom Tombstones Done?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Bob Wyman <bob@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The abstract says:
> This specification adds mechanisms to the Atom Syndication Format
> which Atom Feed publishers can use to explicitly identify Atom
> entries that have been removed from an Atom feed.
> Thus, it appears that the document is specific to "feed" publishers and
> doesn't give proper consideration to those that publish Atom Entry
> Documents. I would reword this as follows (or something similar):
> "This specification adds mechanisms to the Atom Syndication Format which
> publishers of Atom Feed and Entry documents can use to explicitly identify
> Atom entries that have been removed."
> A similar edit would be appropriate for "Section 1, The Introduction" which
> seems overly focused on "feeds".
> Section 4 "Deleted Entry Document": Although it is reasonable that a
> deleted-entry element, when contained in a feed, MAY contain an atom:source
> element (since it is assumed that the enclosing feed document is the entry's
> source), I think that we should depart from the wording of the base Atom
> Syntax here and say that when a deleted-entry element appears in a Feed
> document other than its source feed or when it comprises a Deleted Entry
> Document, that the deleted-entry really MUST contain an atom:source.
I disagree. There may be no source feed at all... and therefore no
reason for atom:source
Personally, I would be very pleased if you could add some non-normative text
> that makes it clear that a deleted-entry is "informational" rather than
> "imperative." I am concerned that we will see people complaining and
> potentially even suing in court, when some service fails to "delete" some
> entry that is particularly embarrassing or that otherwise continues to
> distribute information that some publisher would prefer to have removed from
> the system. To those of us close to this issue, it may be obvious that a
> standard like this cannot impose legally enforceable requirements on people,
> however, we need to recognize that the world into which our work flows is
> one populated not only by those of good will and knowledge but also by
> idiots, twits, and litigious fools... It is best to preemptively disable or
> mute some of the inevitable silliness by ensuring that the standard itself
> tells the fools to stifle themselves... (In slightly more polite terms, of
> bob wyman
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM, James Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Ok, looking over the Atom Tombstones draft, I cannot see any further
>> edits that need to be made. Is it done? Ready to push for last call?
>> - James Snell
- James Snell