Wednesday, November 9, 2005, 5:14:09 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 12:28 AM, David Powell wrote: >> I think actual modified dates are a more useful sort key for the >> protocol than the partially subjective atom:updated. The only drawback >> I can see is that it adds some burden for implementors who don't >> require it (although to support conditional GET, the servers must >> retain the actual modified date anyway). > 1. Either you trust the party on the other end of the protocol or not. > 2. If you trust the party, then you are probably prepared to agree > that an update that party doesn't think is significant, is > insignificant. > 3. If you don't trust the party, then you know perfectly well that > they might lie about atom:modified, so you'll fetch the data and > check for changes anyhow. > 4. If you have an atom:modified that is required to be updated on > every change no matter how insignificant, you have opened the doors > to endless arguments as to what constitutes a change: adjusting white > space between attribute values? Changing the stylesheet? Either you > trust the publisher's judgment or you don't. I would have expected the server to generate the modified date when an entry is posted or updated. -- Dave
