On 21 May 2005, at 1:48 am, Tim Bray wrote:
I don't see why, if you wanted that kind of archive, you couldn't use atom:updated for every little change in the archived version but atom:updated only for the ones you cared about in the published version. In which case the archived version would be a superset of the published version. I see nothing wrong with that. -Tim
That's exactly my problem. You're having to hack the dates to make it work. Would you encourage hacking in other ways?
Say I'm aggregating feeds into a search results feed, and I get the same entry twice (with the same atom:id and atom:updated), from different sources. Would it be acceptable to me to adjust the atom:updated by one second and put both in the results, to show the end user the entry was available from two places?
If that's the intention, then I guess it's OK, but it certainly isn't elegant.
Graham
