On 6/2/05 8:41 AM, "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If > anything we should address the lack of a standard method for creating > atom:id's and we should create a requirement that atom:updated must be > changed on *every* update -- not just on the whim of the entry author...
arrgh! atom:updated was proposed and accepted because it provided the noise-reduction feature of "author whim". atom:modified was shouted down because (I suspect) people were sick of discussing dates, and because it was argued that if two entries though technically different in some content/metadata was not "significantly" different enough in the publishers opinion then it was acceptable that the newer version could be safely dropped on the floor. At the time I argued that we need both, and that without atom:modified that atom:updated would get polluted with every nitpicky modification under the sun, thus destroying the original motivation for an <updated> date over a <modified> date. And now you are proposing to enshrine that pollution into the spec. Like I said: arrgh! If you want atom:modified, you need to write a pace, and you need to really bolster the rationale with all the use cases that require it, and be prepared for a lot of resistance based not on the logic of the element, but instead on a false logic of it having been discussed before (completely ignoring any new and presumably stronger rationale in the pace). Religion is like that. e.
