norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2009/09/03/mbb03http://norman.walsh.name/2009/09/03/mbb03/comments.atom2012-02-13T06:08:32.91045ZComment 1 on /2009/09/03/mbb03http://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012009-09-04T03:12:56Z2009-09-04T03:12:56ZJohn Cowanda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Hmm. If you insert two identical documents into a database, shouldn't that Just Work and produce only one of them?

Just asking.

Comment 2 on /2009/09/03/mbb03http://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022009-09-04T11:04:52Z2009-09-04T11:04:52ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Oh, I think two identical documents is just a degenerate case of the general problem. Given the potential expense of determining that two documents are "identical", I don't think it's worth making a special case. The problem doesn't actually arise in real life very often, this special case even less often.

Comment 3 on /2009/09/03/mbb03http://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032009-09-05T15:02:26Z2009-09-05T15:02:26ZDan Connollyda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Do you think we could get the "seperate" spelling widely accepted? That would have saved me some embarrassment in a grade-school spelling bee.

Comment 4 on /2009/09/03/mbb03http://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042009-09-05T20:05:06Z2009-09-05T20:05:06ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

No, but thanks for spreading the embarrassment around :-)

I fixed the typo.