On 18 Oct 2006, at 16:34, James M Snell wrote:
No, it means only that it's the server's responsibility to determine
when atom:updated should be updated and when it shouldn't.  If the
server wishes to delegate that responsibility to the client, then that's
fine.

Is this not splitting hairs a little? In the end it is always the server who is going to decide if it wants to accept anything at all. The server could also change the content if it wished (though I would not use such a service, having lived through the greed of the .com, we can be assured that servers will want to add their adds to your content). If we use the word responsibility this way then it's not going to help us distinguish anything interesting.

When it comes down to it, my feeling was that the client decides whether or not it wants to check that box "significant update" or not. The client does not have any say in what the value of app:edited is.

But special cases can be made. It's just that those would be understood to be deviations from the norm.

- James

Henry Story meant to write:
[snip]
If the server controls atom:updated then what was the point of the whole discussion of app:edited? The client controls atom:updated. It is the client who decides what a significant change is.

The server controls app:edited. Any edit changes app:edited.

Reply via email to