/ Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | Bob Wyman wrote: |> Phil Ringnalda wrote: |> |>>Patches that will make that more clear are welcome. |> |> The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at: |> http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) |> |> "For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing |> system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were |> published during the course of a single day." |> |> Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the |> same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course |> of multiple days... |> |> It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: "It would not |> be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they |> were published simultaneously." > | As you might imagine, given the context of syndication, the Feed | Validator has the potential for being in the center of controversy. One | of the reasons why it has avoided being such is that I try to rely | directly on the wording from the spec whenever possible. > | http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php#rfc.section.3.3
I think that's pretty good justification for the current text, but I'd
like to say that was surprised by that message when I got it.
The atom:updated dates on my essays come from the timestamp of my
Subversion commit so it is reasonable sometimes to have identical
atom:updated values.
I would have been less confused (though I was only momentarily
confused in any event) by something along the lines of what Phil
suggests.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Being forced to write comments actually
http://nwalsh.com/ | improves code, because it is easier to
| fix a crock than to explain it.--G.
| Steele
pgpg7M4OFdyRZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
