In RSS there is definite confusion on what constitutes an update. In
Atom it is very clear. If <updated> changes, the item has been updated.
No controversy at all.
James Yenne wrote:
According to an exchange on the topic at RSSBandit's support site between
Dare and myself, he writes:
"RSS Bandit does not provide an indication of an "updated" entry since many
differ on what constitutes an update and what level of feedback should be
provided to the user."
I'm led to believe there is some controversy here. James' description is
what I would expect, and seems straight-forward enough. Is there any thing
more to this?
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:31 PM
To: James M Snell
Cc: James Yenne; atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: Reader 'updated' semantics
On Jan 9, 2006, at 5:08 PM, James M Snell wrote:
The updated element is used to indicate when a significant update has
occurred to the entry. If you are updating the updated element when
you update your entry, you are doing the right thing. If RSSBandit
and FeedDemon are not picking up the fact that the entry has been
modified based on a changed updated value (even if the updated element
is the only thing that is different), then I would say those readers
have a bug. You should never be changing your id element value.
James is exactly right. The whole reason 'updated' exists is
*exactly* so you can tell the downstream software unambiguously when some
entry has changed and this ought to be brought to the consumers'
attention. -Tim
