Saturday, May 21, 2005, 4:26:13 AM, Roger B. wrote:
>> > change from a unicode combined char to single + combining >> > diacritic, >> >> No. >> >> > change in paragraph 27 of an article that doesn't show up in a >> > summaries-only feed, >> >> No. > Dave: In my case, and seemingly in the case of most of the tools > surveyed, both of those would get a "yes". I suspect that in many > cases, simply clicking "edit" on an entry and then immediately > clicking "save" will cycle the modified date forward, even if zero > changes were made. That is ok by PaceDateModified2. The "no" in my response was to the question "Is this an update wrt the rules of atom:modiifed?" PaceDateModified2 doesn't have the clause that PaceDateModifed has: "Publishers SHOULD NOT change the value of atom:modified when no changes in the entry have occurred", because of situations like this, where this clause would be difficult to avoid and unenforceable. It is preferable if publishers don't change atom:modified and/or other elements in a feed document unnecessarily for caching reasons amongst others, but cases like the ones above are likely to be infrequent and harmless. -- Dave
