On 9/11/05 3:46 PM, "James Holderness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question I have is why the need for the app:seek attribute? Would it not > be simpler to just predefine the exact format of the query string? Depends on the arguments style of the server software. > One other thing. How well does this extension deal with the issue of > "insignificant" updates (i.e. changes to an entry that don't result in an > atom:updated increment)? It will fail to find older entries that have been recently modified. Also, non-significant != insignificant. > Would it not be better to track the last modified > date of an entry (whether that is some internal value or an extension > element still to be defined) rather than the atom:updated date? Requires invention (app:modified) ... but necessity is the mother of invention, I hear, so invention here might be good. Personally, I see the general case as including *all* changes, with "only those with atom:updated incremented" being the exception, the same as "only those with atom:category=foo" being another special case exception, and "only those with atom:author=bar" being another special case exception. e.
