Antone Roundy wrote:
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.
I feel that you are basically making up the intended usage.
What subscriber on this planet is going to want to reread an entry just because a trivial spelling mistake like this was fixed?
I don't know, but "reread" isn't present in the definition.
Robert Sayre
