On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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.
Okay, we obviously disagree on what we thought was the intent of the proposal. When I speak of "the intended usage", I'm talking about what I, and I thought most of us, always considered to be the intended usage. This discussion has gone on far too long for me to be able to state with confidence where I think the majority of us stand, but I still find it hard to believe that many people could have read the draft text significantly differently than I did. I may be wrong.
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.
Okay, I'll rephrase: What publisher on the planet is going to want to alert their users to the fact that they have fixed a trivial spelling mistake like that? I'm sure some will. I, and I suspect most subscribers, will quickly get annoyed and unsubscribe if they make and flag trivial spelling mistakes often (unless our feed readers allow us to ignore atom:updated on those feeds).
