On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:07 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:I'll try to avoid being snippy here. First of all, my second paragraph began with "Perhaps the current draft text would benefit from clarification"--I'm not claiming that the wording is perfect--just that some of the meaning that the current draft text attempts to convey which is absent from PaceUpdatedDefinition is useful meaning.I think the current draft text defines a much more useful element
The fact that it took you two long paragraphs to describe the functionality you _think_ is present in atom:updated proves that it's a horrbile definition.
Second, my first paragraph contains one sentence describing the functionality I'd like to see atom:updated to be used for. The rest of it describes what I think are the shortcomings of PaceUpdatedDefinition.
The format has no business classifying spelling mistakes.Sure, the spec has no business specifying normative, compulsory treatment of spelling adjustments with respect to atom:updated. But providing examples to clarify the intended usage of an element is definitely in bounds. And I think spelling adjustment examples are not only in bounds, but very useful.
What subscriber on this planet is going to want to reread an entry just because a trivial spelling mistake like this was fixed? Most people will probably have understood the entry perfectly the first time and won't have noticed the spelling mistake at all.Original: I carved a pumkin on Halloween. Fixed: I carved a pumpkin on Halloween.
The difference between a cannibal and an usher (or whatever they're called in a restaurant) is pretty important. This example is good for ensuring that publishers don't think that all spelling fixes are out-of-bounds for atom:updated.Original: I work at a restaurant. I eat people. Fixed: I work at a restaurant. I seat people.
