Subject: Atom Tombstones

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 15:48:41 -0700

Ok, so I've resurrected the Atom Tombstones draft... there are places
where this is has already been implemented and it's time to go ahead
and finish it up. I have made a number of backwards compatible
changes, such as allowing for any number of atom:link elements. I also
intend to allow a at:deleted-entry element to contain an atom:source
element to allow the deleted-entry to be copied from feed to feed. I
want to wrap this up completely so I want to send out one last call
for comments before I publish what I hope is the final draft before
taking that next step towards and RFC.

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

---

From: Sam Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:15:37 +0400

James,

Can this be simplified and done in the atom namespace or does it warrant its
own?

Sam

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 09:03:01 -0400

Thanks for your efforts James. I think tombstones is really important
for offering RESTful data synchronization services in the digital
repository space where OAI-PMH has traditionally been used.

I have been using Tombstones at the Library of Congress. Having the
draft make it to RFC will be very helpful in promoting the use of Atom
within the digital preservation community.

//Ed

[1] http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:04:18 -0700

Sam, had I defined this extension today, I likely would have strongly
considered putting it into the Atom namespace. As it is, however,
there is already deployed code that is using the extension in the
namespace defined and it doesn't make sense to break that now.