I wrote:
>> I believe this was communicated when I wrote:
>> "Atom should support atom:modified to permit the temporal-ordering of
>> members of sets that share the same atom:id and atom:updated values."
Robert Sayre wrote:
> No, that's not what you communicated. How can I temporally order atom
> entries with different IDs but the same atom:updated value? atom:id
> and atom:modified are completely unrelated.
> I don't know what the problem is, but the answer is atom:modified!
Robert, it is clear that your disdain for the current discussions
has driven you to the point where you are no longer even reading the posts
to which you respond. This is not productive.
I have said *nothing* about the temporal ordering of "atom entries
with different IDs". I have only written about the problem of providing
temporal ordering of atom entries that "share the same atom:id and
atom:updated values."
I repeat (with a few added words to make it even more clear):
"Atom should support atom:modified to permit the temporal-ordering of
members of sets whose members share the same atom:id and atom:updated
values."
bob wyman
