Subject: PaceFeedIdOrSelf

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 08:50:56 -0600

The pace adds this under atom:feed:

	atom:feed elements that contain no child atom:id element
	MUST contain an atom:link element with a relation of "self".

That could just as well be:

	atom:feed elements that contain no child atom:link element
	with a relation of "self" MUST contain an atom:id element.

Each subtly implies a preference for one or the other.  I prefer the 
second--a preference for an element that can't be spoofed (or where 
spoofing can easily be detected).  If that's missing (as in cases like 
SMTP delivery that have been noted, where the feed isn't retrievable 
from a specific URI), then atom:id must be added to provide a way to 
identify the feed.

I didn't change the Pace, since such a change could conceivably change 
the opinions of people who've expressed an opinion on it already.  But 
I would be interested to know whether people think this would be an 
improvement, make it worse, or if either is just as well.

As for 'atom:feed elements SHOULD contain at least one atom:link 
element with a relation of "alternate".', I don't care particularly 
whether this is SHOULD or MAY, just not MUST.  So if another Pace makes 
this a MAY, I as the author of PaceFeedIdOrSelf, would not consider it 
to conflict (on that point, at least) with PaceFeedIdOrSelf.

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 03:50:13 +1000

> improvement, make it worse, or if either is just as well.

+1, an improvement

e.

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 03:09:23 +1000

>> improvement, make it worse, or if either is just as well.

-1, on reflection that link[@rel='self] is no substitute for atom:id

-1 to this Pace.

e.