On 7/11/05 3:06 PM, "Luke Arno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> b) so my APP-client may or may not work with your APP-server? gee, thanks. > > Huh? Based on what? Your APP-server may or may not implement the same extensions as my APP-client. I thought that was an obvious implication of putting stuff into extensions. You do realise that, right, especially since you are so enamoured with shunting stuff into extensions? >> c) as a publisher this is unacceptable. I am not my audience. >> > > I have no way to know what you mean by that. As a publisher, I'd use atom:updated as it was intended to be used - to signal to those I'm am publishing to that here is an entry which has a update they wouldn't be wasting their time looking at. Just because I consider an update not significant for my audience does not mean it was insignificant for me. I am not my audience. We have different priorities. Example: An entry has a minor footnote with a link. That link is broken, so as an editor I hunt high and low for an alternative and fix the entry. That might take me an hour to track down. Not an insignificant amount of time. Is this however a significant update for the audience? No. As publisher, I set atom:updated according to my audience's needs. I'm pretty sure this has been explained before. Are you sure you're not just playing dumb? >> Also, from the users p.o.v., when reviewing a collection of recent changes >> and seeing some minor foobar that needs fixing, and doing the effort to fix >> those changes (including looking up the proper spelling, searching for an >> alternative URL for a broken link, etc etc), only to later find out that not >> only did someone else already do those fixes, but did them before I even >> synced, that would make me want to do violent things against whoever thought >> a leaky sync is sufficient and not a problem. > Boy, that was a bad move on you or your client's > part. You should have done a GET (click "Edit" > button or whatever) before you went to all that > trouble. What a waste. apparently, you forgot the offline case. or are ignoring it. > If I change a bunch of code that I checked out a > week ago and don't do an update first, only to > find out that someone else made those changes > 3 days ago, that would be my fault. I wouldn't > blame it on CVS. Different case entirely. (The timing is reversed) e.
