On 5 May 2005, at 5:38 pm, Eric Scheid wrote:
Many wiki's offer options in displaying their change log with either most
recent changes only, or all changes. Both models are commonly supported
because some people want to see notifications of all changes, while others
just want to see the most recent change. That is part of wiki culture, all
the way back to ward's wiki.
OK that makes sense. I still think it's the wrong way to model a change log as a feed.
My other two criticisms still stand:
"atom:updated is used by the publisher to show what they consider a significant change. The user, on the other hand, probably wants to see the latest version, reliably, even if the publisher disagrees that the change was significant. This is the core problem with Tim's proposal. There is no way to create an aggregator that works in the way the user expects."
"Finally, at pubsub, what happens when they download an entry from one feed, then the user edits it, but doesn't modify atom:updated, then they download the new entry from a second feed associated with the site? Different content, identical atom:ids, identical atom:updated => Invalid feed. They're not in any better position than they were before. This doesn't even solve the problem it's meant to."
Basically, atom:updated doesn't properly differentiate versions, and the way atom:updated is being used by the proposal doesn't gel with the actual spec of the element.
Graham
