On 5/21/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
The WG rejected 'objective dates' with prejudice. I'm reminded of this discussion: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10954.html You know, the one where we rejected atom:modified after considering all of the same issues we're discussing now. Robert Sayre
