PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified is way too much to be added to the spec to solve this problem. The easiest fix is to say that in terms of the APP "significant" is anything that would affect an off-line client. Just because the format left us in a lurch doesn't mean we can't fix the problem here.
-joe On 7/7/06, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/7/06 6:08 PM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I once wrote a PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified but it was reject. >> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified I just did a dredge through the archives and can't find any message from Tim/Paul with a tallying of consensus on this pace. There were many messages, but very few explicit +1 or -1 statements. The three main arguments against app:modified were 1) YAGNI 2) can it be trusted? 3) atom:insignificant means we can ignore the changes Were there other reasons? e.
-- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
