On Oct 15, 2005, at 1:21 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
Whatever the history, the current atom:updated element is not
ambiguous in the slightest:
http://www.atompub.org/2005/08/17/draft-ietf-atompub-format
-11.html#rfc.section.4.2.15
Given that the format ties the semantic of this element to what the
"publisher considers significant", it seems logical to conclude that
the protocol needs to have a way to indicate what the publisher
considers. Whether this is done with a pub:control field or by
explicitly setting the value of updated (i.e., whether the
atom:updated values are sourced from server or client) is worth
debating.
It should be content within the atom entry being published.
The way that is defined makes it no different from a title.
....Roy
