Subject: PaceMinimalEntryVersioning

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:13:54 -0700

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMinimalEntryVersioning

> Multiple instances or versions of the same entry MAY appear in a feed, 
> index, or archive.
I'm in favor of this--it's easy enough to imagine uses for it (like a 
feed showing the history of a particular entry).

> Consumers MAY choose to present or record only the instance or version 
> of the entry with the latest [[date that indicates change per other 
> discussion, which is <modified> in format-01]].
...or they may choose to only present the first one, or any other 
one...  I think this sentence shouldn't specify which instance 
consumers might process.  Instead, perhaps:

Consumers MAY choose not to present or record all instances or versions 
of each entry.

---

From: "Roger B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:12:39 -0600

> feed showing the history of a particular entry).

Antone: I'm +0 about it, but it might be a good idea to include some
pointed warnings for publishers.  Some client apps are going to use
the first entry in the feed, some the last... some will look at dates,
some won't... and so on.

As with many of these "someone might need it some day" proposals,
multiple instances of an atom:id in a feed will mean the user
experience goes from the standard "variable" to "wholly
unpredictable". That means complaints sent to the client author, who
then has the unenviable task of saying, "Look, the person who threw
this feed together is following the spec, but so am I. Sucks to be
you."

Actually, I think I'll shut up now. The more I type, the closer I am to -1.

--
Roger Benningfield.