On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:01:38 +0100, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On the contrary, I have a problem with preventing multiple revisions from having the same atom:updated value. It subverts the intent of atom:updated being a subjective element, and it puts the feed compiler in an impossible situation. Nothing prohibits the entry author from producing two different instances with the same atom:updated value, but given this valid situation, the feed compiler is forced to silently lose data.
This goes way back to the days we discussed this, and different ways of signaling "change" to the user. I was always for the more automatic, strict and professional publishing-centric way of doing it, with atom:modified which got changed with every revision of the entry, no matter how significant.
This didn't fit the blogging community too well, though, so the conclusion came to something less strict and thus we have atom:updated. I don't think there's anything constructive to get out from surfacing that discussion again, but I might of course be wrong.
-- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
