On 10/22/05, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 23/10/05 7:21 AM, "Luke Arno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2. The draft element is intended to provide > > semantics to communicate publication status. > > > > This is a DRY violation. atom:published is optional. If an > > entry does not have published, it is... not published. > > We should not recreate semantics already available in > > atom syntax. > > Firstly, the semantic you describe (presence = push through to publish) > isn't in the spec > > The "atom:published" element is a Date construct indicating an > instant in time associated with an event early in the life cycle > of the entry. > > Typically, atom:published will be associated with the initial > creation or first availability of the resource. > > So if my system wants to follow the spec and assign a value to > atom:published to show it started life last week, your system would go ahead > and leak that out into the world even though it's not yet finished being > written? >
"or first availability" In my system it would not have a published date if it is not yet published. Nothing is "leaking" whatsoever. Also note that it is "published" not "created". I'm gonna buy you a dictionary. :) You can use it as created if you want. That would not be invalid syntax. It does cost you the ability to use published to mean published. > Secondly, atom:published is optional (damnit!). This means it's valid for > published feeds to *not* have atom:published dates ... and yet you require > them for them to be published (or deny draft status to those publishing > engines that don't support atom:published). > You can strip it in the feeds you use for syndication if you are hot on not showing published for some reason. Syntactically it is optional. You are confusing syntax with protocol and and implementation. - Luke
