[on atom-syntax only, no need to CC atom-protocol] 2006/2/1, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Wednesday, February 1, 2006, 3:20:23 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > IIRC, it was to allow a feed listing "revisions" of the same entry: > > same id, different "updated" values. > > I don't have a problem with allowing multiple revisions with the same > atom:id in a single document at all; I think that is a good thing. > > On the contrary, I have a problem with preventing multiple revisions > from having the same atom:updated value. It subverts the intent of > atom:updated being a subjective element, and it puts the feed compiler > in an impossible situation. Nothing prohibits the entry author from > producing two different instances with the same atom:updated value, > but given this valid situation, the feed compiler is forced to > silently lose data. […] > It also prevents synchronization applications, such as Microsoft's SSE > from introducing a more discerning date/revision extension, because > nothing is allowed to be more discerning than atom:updated, even > though the specification admits that: > > "not all modifications necessarily result in a changed atom:updated > value"
Totally agree. You should add it to http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/RFC4287Errata -- Thomas Broyer
