As a consumer of information, and not a developer of Atom code, I have to agree wth several posts: the publisher of the information determines if atom:updated should have a new value, whether that publisher is human or machine. The consumer of the feeds will decide what to do with atom:updated - some may cache everything and replace things based on the info being updated according to the publisher, others may always present things which come in the feed. People will choose client software based on behaviors they like.
At 01:12 PM 11/2/04, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
--- Bill de h�ra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the level of discrimination in intent some > people are > looking for with these dates isn't best achieved > with the Atom spec. > I suggest leaving this to people's own > writing/publishing processes > or UI design.
+1
Folks are trying to mandate UI behavior in aggregators via spec text which will most likely be ignored by aggregator authors anyway.
atom:modified is likely to be too noisy for aggregators to actually use it as an active means of signifiying changes to an entry. It may make sense as a passive means of indicating changes.
The usage of atom:updated will likely vary too widely from feed to feed to end up providing a consistent enough user experience for it to be used as an active means of signifying changes to an entry.
People who think that they can come up with the spec text that will ensure that aggregators provide users a consistent experience 100% of the time are fooling themselves.
=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #222
I reserve the right to execute any henchmen who appear to be a little too intelligent, powerful, or devious. However if I do so, I will not at some subsequent point shout "Why am I surrounded by these incompetent fools?!"
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.
