On 21/5/05 5:32 PM, "David Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it help if we said that if the atom:modified element is absent, > its value MAY be taken from the atom:updated element? (or to put it > another way: atom:modified MAY be omitted if its value is equivalent > to the value of atom:updated). I'm not opposed to the idea, but I will note that early on the WG really disliked the idea of establishing precedence/default/fall-back rules for dates. e.
