Bill de h�ra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
The reason that we have "updated" with the current language is it reflects the reality that the *only* kind of change that can be cleanly defined is "The publisher thinks it changed."
Strong agreement and as I'm not constrained by being a chair, I'll go further than Tim - using this pace to reopen objective updating is out of order.
It's certainly out of order (imho), but the Pace doesn't make sense anyway. One of the nice things about RFC2119 is that it provides a couple different ways to say everything. Let's try RECOMMENDED instead of SHOULD:
---
The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the most
recent instant in time when an entry or feed was modified in a way the producer considers significant. Therefore, it is NOT RECOMMENDED that other modifications result in a changed atom:updated value.
---
uh, yeah...
Robert Sayre
