> The definition of atom:updated was explicitly and intentionally > crafted to permit the creation of multiple non-identical entries that shared > common atom:id and atom:updated values. Clearly, it was the intention of the > Working Group to permit this, otherwise the definition of atom:updated would > not be as it is. Thus, it is ridiculous to try to suggest that "feeds with > the same id and atom:updated" are somehow unanticipated or not-understood. > If such feeds are so far outside the ken of what the working group intends, > then atom:updated should never have been defined as it is. > Additionally, atom:modified is clearly distinguished from > atom:updated *by definition!* Atom:modified indicates that last time an > entry was modified. Atom:updated indicates the last time it was modified in > a way that the publisher considered "significant." This is a very clear > distinction.
Bob, that's exactly right. The definitions are very different, and this is not an issue that arises with the allowance for multiple atom:ids in one feed document. Here's the last time this discussion happened: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13276.html Robert Sayre
