On 13/5/05 4:39 AM, "Antone Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 thought 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. Yes. Which has implications in implementations. Consider an implementation that stores entries in a local database, but doesn't bother doing a record update if it later sees the same entry where /entry/updated hasn't changed. > 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. true. not a problem. > 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. I agree. You can see how easy it would be to not do that though. It could also be argued that the publisher has signalled the significance by updating /feed/updated, and thus effectively /feed/entry/. The ambiguity bothers me. > 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? Yes, another for the implementors guide. e.
