I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
that it is a REQUIRED element and that many of the publishers actually
putting it in the feed and paying for the bandwidth don't intend using
it frequently?
Would it help if we said that if the atom:modified element is
David Powell wrote:
I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
that it is a REQUIRED element and that many of the publishers actually
putting it in the feed and paying for the bandwidth don't intend using
it frequently?
Would it help if we said that if the
On 21/5/05 5:32 PM, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it help if we said that if the atom:modified element is absent,
its value MAY be taken from the atom:updated element? (or to put it
another way: atom:modified MAY be omitted if its value is equivalent
to the value of
I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
A lot of the opposition comes from the fact the WG found it useless,
months ago. Allowing multiple atom:ids in a feed doesn't change that.
You want to sit here and talk about atom:modified for another month?
For an optional
