On 22 May 2005, at 2:05 am, Tim Bray wrote:
I'm not hacking at all. In this scenario, for archiving purposes I
consider all changes no matter how small significant, and thus
preserve them all with different values of atom:updated. For
publication to the web, I have a different criterion as to what is
significant. I fail to see any problem in the archive being a
superset of the feed.
It's not a superset, or an archive. The details of the atom:updated
value that each revision was published with have been lost.
Say I'm aggregating feeds into a search results feed, and I get
the same entry twice (with the same atom:id and atom:updated),
from different sources. Would it be acceptable to me to adjust the
atom:updated by one second and put both in the results, to show
the end user the entry was available from two places?
There may be a reason to trust one of the sources more than the
other. If so, choose that. If not, apply the a policy such as
discarding any entries whose ID you've seen unless the atom:updated
is later than what you've seen so far. -Tim
Yes, but why? Why not allow both versions to travel downstream?
Graham
