Antone Roundy wrote:
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).
I don't see how the Pace requires publishers to "alert their users" to a trivial update. Please explain.
Personally, I would prefer the text Bill proposed. I offered the Pace as somewhat of a compromise.
The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the most recent instant in time when the [feed/entry] was modified in a way the producer considers significant. Ergo, not all modifications necessarily result in a changed atom:updated value.
What exactly is missing from this definition? If atom:updated changes, the consumer knows that a "significant" update has taken place, and are free to act on it as they see fit. Note that this definition also implies that changes which take place without a change to atom:updated are "insignificant", whatever that means...
I don't see how we can get more specific without dictating an editorial policy, which is totally inappropriate.
Robert Sayre
