On 18/5/05 10:16 PM, "Roger B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric: That most definitely wasn't the core reason for opposition, to > my recollection. It was opposed because it can't be reliably produced > by existing systems, among other things. The exact same argument can be made against atom:published and atom:updated, and pretty much any date for that matter. Sutely you are not suggesting that atom:published and atom:updated should be stricken from the spec? >(See the wiki for a survey of tools and the dates they support.) hmmm ... Blogger, Moveable Type, JournURL, bloxsom, ExpressionEngine, ongoing, Roller, Macsanomat, WordPress, and BigBlogTool all provide dates which represent the last date/time the entry was modified, and there is no info for LiveJournal. Sam has mentioned they have the same three dates as blogger, but if not it is open-source code and can be patch. Real world practice thus suggests that atom:modified is not such a great burden. Could there be systems incapable of storing/producing atom:modified, or incapable of being patched to do so? Yes. But the same can be said for atom:updated, atom:published, atom:id, atom:link, atom:content, etc etc etc. e.
