On 22/5/05 12:14 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This whole argument is silly. Atom:modified is needed. It should be >> provided. Nobody has given a decent argument against it. > > I was deeply -1 and continue to be. Every single problem you're > talking about with atom:updated will simply be transferred to > atom:modified. > > Timestamps are not version identifiers. > We can't standardize versioning. atom:modified more than hits the 80:20 mark, especially if we ignore the edge cases of bad actors (which no proposal stands much chance against). e.
