On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:34:43 -0700, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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). Ok. But some people *do* intend to use atom:updated for things like spelling changes - Robert for a start. But if I was using a CMS for project management I'd probably want to use atom:updated to bring new releases of existing projects to people's attention. Like you mentioned before, this range would only work satisfactorily if the end user sets per-feed preferences. I get the impression that the assumption is being made that by reducing the number of elements, the amount of work needed for producers and consumers will be reduced. But in cases like this the more information the publisher can supply (discriminating between trivial and significant changes), the less work is needed at the client. The dates may still be inaccurate and inconsistent across feeds, but for most default behaviour should be ok, the necessary end-user intervention will be reduced. Better for the end user. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
