Thomas Broyer wrote:
> David Powell wrote: >> I'm in favour of allowing duplicate ids. This only seems to be a >> partial solution though: >> >> "Their atom:updated timestamps SHOULD be different" >> >> But what if they are not? What if I want to represent an archive of a >> feed - maybe mine, maybe someone else's - but the atom:updated dates >> are the same in two or more entries? I thought it was up to the >> publisher to decide whether to rev atom:updated. > If you don't update atom:updated (e.g. it's not a "significant" update, > fixing typos, etc.), one could (I would) assume you don't want to > archive the previous entry "state". Archiving was just an example, but the Publisher and the Archiver are different entities. It is up to the Publisher to decide what they consider to be a "significant" update, and it is up to the Archiver to decide what they want to archive. > There are very few chances that you "significantly" update an entry with > the same second I agree, but this proposal distorts the intended meaning of atom:updated, and I think that this risks atom:updated becoming an unreliable indicator for the newness of entries, which is a shame, because it is a useful feature. -- Dave
