Saturday, May 21, 2005, 2:04:57 AM, I wrote:
> [reposted without so many typos and grammatical errors - reply to either] I just noticed some irony in my attempt to repost that mail about atom:modified, with the intention to disclaim that any "significant changes" had been made, thereby saving any readers that had already read and understood the long post from rereading it. Note that the Atom mailing list archive retains both copies, ordered by the Date header. It is a bit borderline in this case, the original post was hard to understand. But, if these had been atom entries rather than mailing list posts, this is the sort of scenario where an archive Feed Document needs to contain both revisions of an entry - in order - even when the publisher doesn't advertise that the update was significant by reving atom:updated. -- Dave
