Saturday, May 21, 2005, 3:28:26 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
>> This line: >> "Their atom:updated timestamps SHOULD be different" > Ah. I misread their orders, thinking I was only to include the first > sentence. You're 100% right. Note that this does not mean I'm in favor > of atom:modified. Versioning problems aren't solved by timestamps. Whoa! I misread that too. (I mentioned the "contentious atom:updated paragraph" that had been removed in an earlier mail - I didn't realize that it was still in) Just to be clear, is this the text that will be included in the next draft? : > If multiple atom:entry elements with the same atom:id value appear in > an Atom Feed document, they describe the same entry and software MUST > treat them as such. > > Their atom:updated timestamps SHOULD be different, and processing > software SHOULD regard entries with duplicate atom:id and atom:updated > values as evidence of an error in the feed generation. If an Atom Feed > Document contains multiple entries with the same atom:id, software MAY > choose to display all of them or some subset of them. One typical > behavior would be to display only the entry with the latest > atom:updated timestamp. This is much worse than I thought. That second paragraph is bad on so many levels.... -- Dave
