Another nice side effect of this, is that the question of who sets
the time stamp dissapears.
The client sets updated, the server sets modified.
Henry
On 7 Jul 2006, at 13:26, Henry Story wrote:
Just to place my statements in the recent synchronization thread in
the right place.
And a restatement of the fact that I have changed my mind.
On 5 Nov 2005, at 01:01, Thomas Broyer wrote:
<http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/
PaceOrderCollectionsByAppModified>
== Abstract ==
+1
To summarize my argument.
If we don't add app:modified timestamps, the cheer force of the
atom protocol will make atom:updated mean atom:modified. For a long
time I thought this was not a bad thing, and so I argued that there
was no need for app:modified, since atom:updated really is that thing.
But clearly a lot of people want to be able to have atom:modified
change only when a significant change occurs. Ie. They want to be
able to be able to signal the difference between a major change
("re-read my post") and a minor editorial change "I just fixed a
typo, there is nothing else to see here".
So if we do not add app:modified there will be no way to
distinguish these two use cases. Publishing servers will be stuck
with the following dilemma: if they allow the user to
determine :updated, it will be very difficult for a blog editor
(such as BlogEd) to do correct synchronization, as demonstrated so
well by Thomas Broyer in the "synchronization" thread. On the other
hand if therefore the publishing system takes atom:updated in hand
and sets it automatically for any change, readers of the feeds will
feel they are being spammed.
app:modified solves the problem. It is low cost, and very much in
demand.
Henry
