If we must have atom:updated, then the new wording is about as good as it can get.
However, I would much prefer if we used distinct mechanisms to indicate the time of the change and the significance of the change. Let's stop overloading this date value as I propose in: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11110.html -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman / IMC Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:23 PM To: Atom WG Subject: Consensus probe on PaceUpdatedDefinition Greetiings again. As usual, it's pretty hard to gauge consensus on this one. It seems that people change their views during the day, sometimes based on a passing "how about if I took out these three words", sometimes just because. Other folks seem pretty solid. The draft says: ----- The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the most recent instant in time when a change to the entry was made that the publisher wishes to bring to the attention of subscribers. For example, such changes might not include minor adjustments like spelling and grammatical corrections. ----- The exact wording from the Pace we're talking about is: ----- 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. ----- So, please reply on this thread, saying: A) I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace. B) The new wording from the Pace, and the exact old wording from the draft, are both really unacceptable, but the following would be fine/OK with me: [[ fill in here ]] C) The exact old wording in the draft is the best it can be; please don't change it at all. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
