Robert Sayre wrote:
> atom:modified cannot be operationally distinguished from atom:updated.
> Obviously, if people start shipping feeds with the same id and
> atom:updated figure, it will be needed. There's no reason to
> standardize it, though. We don't know how that would work.
The definition of atom:updated was explicitly and intentionally
crafted to permit the creation of multiple non-identical entries that shared
common atom:id and atom:updated values. Clearly, it was the intention of the
Working Group to permit this, otherwise the definition of atom:updated would
not be as it is. Thus, it is ridiculous to try to suggest that "feeds with
the same id and atom:updated" are somehow unanticipated or not-understood.
If such feeds are so far outside the ken of what the working group intends,
then atom:updated should never have been defined as it is.
Additionally, atom:modified is clearly distinguished from
atom:updated *by definition!* Atom:modified indicates that last time an
entry was modified. Atom:updated indicates the last time it was modified in
a way that the publisher considered "significant." This is a very clear
distinction.
bob wyman
