On 16 May 2005, at 12:07 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
1) cvs versions are numbered with things like 1.99 and 1.103. This
makes such versions unsuitable for this purpose. How do we make
this clear?
"atom:version is a Date Construct"?
It might be worth giving it a clearer name, though.
2) in the general case, sorting of unicode is culturally sensitive.
This isn't a concern for RFC 3339 based dates given the constrained
set of characters that that grammar permits.
Timezones prevent sorting of RFC 3339 dates alphabetically anyway, so why is this a concern? Dates have to be parsed before the point in time and therefore the chronology can be established.
3) Perhaps version/modified need not be mandatory except in those
instances where entries with duplicate ids are present in a feed?
Yes.
4) No semantics can be inferred by two different entries with two
different ids sharing the same version.
Can they be for atom:modified? Usefully?
Graham
