On 3/11/04 9:57 AM, "Antone Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sheesh. I never said that it did. I was responding to your assertion > that: >> The format has no business classifying spelling mistakes. > with examples of spelling fixes that I think clearly would and would > not warrant altering atom:modified (with or without this Pace), and > asserting that it is within the spec's scope to include such examples. > Of course, if the decision of whether or not to alter atom:modified is > up to the publisher, as I'd like it to be, some publishers will chose > to alter it for trivial spelling fixes. And just like they would if > they wrote meaningless titles, those who do will degrade the quality of > their feeds. you meant atom:updated, right? e.
