On 10/27/05, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 28/10/05 2:56 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > atom:published is optional because there is no reason to require feed > > publishers to indicate when an entry has been published. > > > It was also decided to be optional because some publishing engines > don't/can't accommodate the concept of a published date. No storage > allocated. You can't publish data you don't store. >
That makes sense in terms of easing adoption of atom as a syndication format. But, they are going to have to change their implementations to support APP anyway. > > Now flip it around, suppose that Sam's entry does NOT have atom:published, > > but > > I want the entry to be publicly available. Using your suggested approach, I > > have to add atom:published to his entry, meaning that I am adding metadata > > to > > the entry that does not accurately reflect the reality of when Sam's entry > > was > > actually published. That's also bad. > > > +1, that is quite -1. > As I am proposing this, Sam would expose a feed with published dates using the APP mime type for republishing purposes. If not then he is not using the optimal method to allow republishing because he is not participating in the protocol. Sam would participate I think so it is a non-problem :) Adding metadata to someone else's entry like that is sub-optimal and so is getting an entry out of an RSS feed. <shrug/> - Luke
