On Thursday, May 12, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Eric Scheid wrote:Gah! What is the true atom:updated for the following entry? <feed> <updated>2005-05-12T02:22:59+0000</updated> <author>...</author> <copyright>...</copyright> <entry> <updated>2005-05-11T01:11:59+0000</updated> <id>...</id> <summary>...</summary> <title>...</title> </entry> </feed>
Well, I don't see any problem here, as the enclosing document (the feed) is said to have been updated later than the enclosed one (the entry).
A feed's atom:updated may be later than its latest entry's atom:updated, because you might have changed its title, subtitle, icon, links, etc.
Eric, was your point that the entry might be inheriting data from the feed which was updated after the entry was updated, and therefore, the entry might be though of as having been updated after it's atom:updated timestamp? Other than that, I don't see any problem--the entry was updated when at the time indicated by it's atom:updated element.
But back to my question--if for example, the feed/author was updated at the time indicated by feed/updated:
1) If the author of the entry was NOT intended to be changed, the publisher should have put the old author into the entry.
2) If the author of the entry WAS intended to be changed, and the publisher considers this significant to the entry, then the publisher should have updated feed/entry/updated.
Because neither of those was done, from the XML shown above, we must assume that whatever change was made to the feed at the time in feed/updated did NOT affect the entry in a way that the publisher considered significant enough to update feed/entry/updated. Another one for the implementors guide?
