On 5/21/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote: > >> I believe this was communicated when I wrote: > >> "Atom should support atom:modified to permit the temporal-ordering of > >> members of sets that share the same atom:id and atom:updated values." > > Robert Sayre wrote: > > No, that's not what you communicated. How can I temporally order atom > > entries with different IDs but the same atom:updated value? atom:id > > and atom:modified are completely unrelated. > > I don't know what the problem is, but the answer is atom:modified! > > Robert, it is clear that your disdain for the current discussions > has driven you to the point where you are no longer even reading the posts > to which you respond. This is not productive. > I have said *nothing* about the temporal ordering of "atom entries > with different IDs". I have only written about the problem of providing > temporal ordering of atom entries that "share the same atom:id and > atom:updated values." > I repeat (with a few added words to make it even more clear): > > "Atom should support atom:modified to permit the temporal-ordering of > members of sets whose members share the same atom:id and atom:updated > values."
So, it's about disambiguating versions of an entry, right? Robert Sayre
