In section 4.2 of the draft, In Atom-formatted archived feeds, two entries are duplicates if they have the same atom:id element. The update time of an entry is determined by its atom:updated element, and likewise the update time of a feed document is determined by its feed-level atom:updated element.
In RSS 2, the equivalent of atom:feed/atom:updated is rss/channel/lastBuildDate. I think it is a good practice to always include it. By the way, do publishers need to use an atom:id element in RSS 2 feeds since there is no equivalent in RSS 2? Franklin ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Holderness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "atom-syntax" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 23 May, 2007 15:37 Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-10.txt > > Franklin Tse wrote: >> I think lastBuildDate and managingEditor should not be >> removed since they are equal to atom:updated and atom:author >> respectively. > > I considered that, but it seems to me the only reason they are in the Atom > examples is because Atom requires those elements - they don't actually add > anything illustrative to the example. However, if you really want to make > the examples identical element-for-element, then the Atom feeds should all > include a subtitle element to match RSS's required channel description. > IMHO. > > Regards > James > >
