Re: By way of example.

How is setting up a central Atom Store to manage Atom Documents for *any* 
reason "far from a typical use case"?  There will be documents like this:

http://canuck.bisonsystems.net/dev/atom/entry-comment.xml

For which anyone deploying Atom is allowed multiple revisions with the same 
Atom ID.  All my use cases follow from querying data out of that Atom Store. 
This is hardly an obscure notion, people talk about doing just that all the 
time.  Since Atom allows multiple Atom IDs in a <feed> I'm not sure how I'm 
doing anything nonstandard on the Atom level?

I'm also not sure how everyone here can be so self-assuredly convinced that 
I'm in the 20 not the 80 by deploying an Atom Store based on this notion.  
How does anyone here know what ratio of Atom implementors have chosen to 
have multiple entries with the same Atom ID as the spec allows, vs. those who 
have not seen the need?  IMHO, since 80/20 can't be judged, better to follow 
RFC 4287.

-EJB

Since I have literally thousands and thousands of posts online, I wouldn't be 
so sure that five minutes of Googling can tell you *exactly* what I'm up to, 
but I hope there was no implication that I have some ulterior motive here.

http://www.iwdn.net/showthread.php?t=4114

In case you or anyone else missed that, I happen to help people implement web 
sites and have been doing so for a dozen years, sometimes for absolutely no 
compensation.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kyle Marvin [mailto:kmarvin-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 08:46 PM
>To: eric-MkmoNbc1SAncr/OS1auqaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: 'James M Snell', atom-protocol-O6w3ZxSwtmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: By way of example.
>
>Eric,
>
>A Google web search on "Eric J. Bowman" sheds a lot more light on what
>you're tryng to accomplish then you've been willing to share on-list
>(all public information, obviously).   It seems like it's pretty far
>from a typical APP use case.
>
>Apologies to all for the public plug for my employer  ;)
>
>-- Kyle
>
>On 8/18/06, Kyle Marvin <kmarvin-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>wrote:
>> On 8/18/06, Eric J. Bowman <eric-MkmoNbc1SAncr/OS1auqaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Ok, well, at least now I think I understand what you're trying to say.
>> > >I still completely disagree with it, but hey, I guess it's progress
>> > >nonetheless....
>> > >
>> >
>> > You can disagree with me all you want, and may even convince me of your
>> > position, so long as we both understand how to frame the debate, which is
>> > certainly not always obvious.
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> Please draft a PACE that describes specifically what you'd like to see
>> changed in the APP draft--09 language.   That's likely to be the next
>> e-mali I read from you.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> -- Kyle
>>
>