Subject: FeedId

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:00:57 +0100

PaceFeedIdOrAlternate, withdrawn, no comment
PaceFeedIdOrSelf  0
PaceOptionalFeedLink +1

I agree with the rationale; no point making people things they can't do. 
I'm assuming that if PaceOptionalFeedLink goes through feed:id is a MUST.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:19:18 -0400

> I'm assuming that if PaceOptionalFeedLink goes through feed:id is a MUST.

On what do you base that assumption?

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:28:45 +0100

Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I agree with the rationale; no point making people things they can't 
>> do. I'm assuming that if PaceOptionalFeedLink goes through feed:id is 
>> a MUST.
> 
> 

That there is consensus we'll want to identify a feed, even if we can't 
provide a link.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 13:34:52 -0400

> That there is consensus we'll want to identify a feed, even if we can't 

At the moment, there is not such a proposal on the table for the chairs 
to even determine if there is consensus around it.

My take (as a non-chair) is that after a lengthy discussion about this, 
people did want *something* that they could use to identify the feed. 
Some initially rallied around feed link, some around id, some around 
feed rel=self.  A number of proposals surfaced.

The one proposal on the table that has a chance is PaceFeedIdOrSelf, but 
it is in trouble.

So, at current course and speed, I see us coming to a conclusion that 
feed link be made optional with nothing to replace it.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 19:44:06 +0100

On 6 May 2005, at 4:28 pm, Bill de hÓra wrote:

> That there is consensus we'll want to identify a feed, even if we  
> can't provide a link.

I'd +1 an ordinary "make feed:id required" Pace.

PaceFeedIdOrSelf is too awful an idea for words.

Graham

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:47:51 -0400

> I'd +1 an ordinary "make feed:id required" Pace.

I'd +1 any Pace that has a chance of achieving consensus that makes at 
least one element that can be used as a feed identifier mandatory.

At the moment, alternate link is the element of record.

-1 to PaceOptionalFeedLink if it to be accepted in isolation or to be 
portrayed as "inconsistent" with any other feed id related paces (hey, I 
might be dumb, but I learn quick)

+1 to any Pace that moves this to responsibility to a more appropriate home.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:01:23 -0400

> At the moment, alternate link is the element of record.

Do any applications use it as such? In my experience, applications use
the URI they retrieved the feed from as the feed identifier. For
example, I believe every single pubsub.com match feed uses the same
alternate link.

> +1 to any Pace that moves this to responsibility to a more appropriate home.

I'd like to point out that writing a proposal doesn't necessarily
imply support on the part of the author.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:21:57 -0400

> example, I believe every single pubsub.com match feed uses the same

My thoughts mirror this discussion from just barely over a month ago:

   http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14008.html

Would people be happy with the following?  If so, I would gladly write 
up a Pace:

   Alternate Link: OPTIONAL
   Self Link: SHOULD (rationale: existing pain point)
   ID: MUST

- Sam Ruby