Graham wrote:
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."
Just a thought: On the other hand, perhaps this is an opportunity to operationally define "significant change": A change which results in a new version being exposed on one's feed. If you think your users would care about seeing the change, then change the atom:updated field and 'republish' by adding to the feed. If not, just change your content and don't republish.
Examples of this might include: Fixing irrelevant typos. Changing character set encodings. Changing formatting to match a new style guide.
-John
