Subject: Atom Tombstones Done?

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:18:29 -0700

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
  http://www.snellspace.com
  [email-masked]

---

From: Bob Wyman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:40:34 -0400

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.

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
course...)

bob wyman

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:44:59 -0400

> edits that need to be made. Is it done? Ready to push for last call?

+1

//Ed

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:02:35 -0700

+1

> 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

> tells the fools to stifle themselves... (In slightly more polite terms, of

Agreed.

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:13:08 -0700

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Bob Wyman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> [snip]
> You are, of course, correct. How about saying that "if there is a source
> feed, you MUST provide an atom:source" ???
>
>>

That works for me.

---

From: Bob Wyman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:09:46 -0400

---

From: Bob Wyman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:14:27 -0400

Great. LGTM -- assuming those changes.

bob wyman

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:20:00 -0700

Changes made. will hold off posting draft -10 until I'm sure there are
no further quick changes.