Robert Sayre wrote:
> Here's the last time this discussion happened:
> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13276.html
Tim's point in the referenced mail supported the current definition
of atom:updated which provides a means for publishers to express their own
subjective opinions of what is a "significant" change to an entry. However,
the solution of one problem does not eliminate the second problem. The
second problem is that readers (not publishers) need to be able to
distinguish and temporally order entries that have been written by
publishers. Because the publishers CANNOT know the detailed needs of all
their readers, publishers' subjective input cannot be held to be useful.
Objective metrics which can be clearly understood by both publishers and
readers must be used. In this case, the best objective measure to use is to
say that the change of one of more bits in the encoding or representation of
an entry should result in a new atom:modified value.
* Atom:updated addresses needs of publishers
* Atom:modified addresses needs of readers
Both sets of needs, that of publishers as well as readers, must be
addressed and dealt with by the Atom format. Atom:updated only addresses the
needs of publishers.
bob wyman
