On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:45:04 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 proposed in: > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11110.html I agree with the thrust of your analysis, but our process does seem to make it difficult to make decisions about more than one construct at a time. However the same meaning as [importance="high", date] is expressed in atom:updated as it stands. The addition of atom:modified would complete the picture. I accept there is resistance to the addition of atom:modified, but perhaps there's some combination of mandatory/optional possible with these two elements which would make a compromise for consensus? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
