Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 1:16:15 PM, Roger B wrote:
>> There was opposition to atom:modified because we couldn't see a need for it. >> Now we have a need for it. > Eric: That most definitely wasn't the core reason for opposition, to > my recollection. I just checked the PaceDateModified thread, and Eric's recollection seems correct. I couldn't see a single objection on the basis of software support. > It was opposed because it can't be reliably produced > by existing systems, among other things. (See the wiki for a survey of > tools and the dates they support.) Am I looking at the same page? BlogToolDateSurvey shows atom:modified as having widespread support. Support for atom:updated isn't shown, but I would bet on it being a lot scarcer than atom:modified. -- Dave
