Antone Roundy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Bill de h�ra wrote:[[[
The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the time when the [feed/entry] was changed. Not all modifications to an entry require a changed atom:updated value.
]]]
I think atom:updated defined that way would be useless. And I don't think that "the qualifying fluff" as you call it imposes an unwarranted decision making burden. I think its usefulness is worth the trivial effort required to remember to check or uncheck a checkbox, or whatever trivial task would be needed to tell one's publishing software whether or not to change atom:updated.
Apart from your first two claims, the rest of what you say is consistent with the pared down text I posted. I still don't see anything we need to say beyond that.
As long as the default is set intelligently (letting the user decide what the default should be would be ideal), the effort required is going to be trivial. Anyway, if changing atom:updated is optional, whether the basis for changing it is loosely defined or totally undefined, the option will have equal need to be presented to users.
What you've said above is much the same line of thought that leads me to the conclusion we need say nothing about intent or granularity of changes. [Nevermind that I doubt there is anything generally useful we can or should say here in terms of spec constraints.]
cheers Bill
