Re: atom:updated - not now() values?

[Bill de hÓra]

Eric Scheid wrote:

When updating an entry, is it acceptable to insert a value other than Now()
into atom:updated?


Yes. Reasons below.


For example: Corporate Communications prep a release and they stamp it with
a release date of Monday 4 PM ... but I don't see this release update until
I get into the office at 2 PM Tuesday, and thus I quickly enter it into the
CMS and set the atom:updated value to Monday 4 PM.


That's the kind of scenario that's begging for a business rule. I don't 
see anything in Atom that disallows those kind of policies.


1: the above scenario has run into the difference between document 
management, content management and publication. Atom doesn't distinguish 
between those.


2: an asshole reading of atom:updated says it should bind to the Atom 
Entry . A moron reading says it could bind to the thing the Entry is 
trying to describe (a press release, or news about a press release, 
or...). Atom isn't precise enough in it's denotation to say one way or 
another.


3: Literally, the spec doesn't say you must enter a Now() value. It also 
doesn't say whose Now() value you should enter.


I think policy you would apply would be primarily driven by what you 
think atom:updated points at, ie, the first point to close out above is 
2. It does not help that Atom says little about Entry life cycles, for 
example, how Entries get onto servers in the first place, which is the 
issue your scenario has to deal with. Btw, I think the scenario 
describes a highly plausible state of affairs.


cheers
Bill

Re: atom:updated - not now() values?

[Tim Bray]

Eric Scheid wrote:

When updating an entry, is it acceptable to insert a value other than Now()
into atom:updated?


Clearly, since updated is defined as the time the publisher thinks it 
was significantly updated.  Of course, the server could over-write the 
updated value if it chose. -Tim




For example: Corporate Communications prep a release and they stamp it with
a release date of Monday 4 PM ... but I don't see this release update until
I get into the office at 2 PM Tuesday, and thus I quickly enter it into the
CMS and set the atom:updated value to Monday 4 PM.

e.

atom:updated - not now() values?

[Eric Scheid]

When updating an entry, is it acceptable to insert a value other than Now()
into atom:updated?

For example: Corporate Communications prep a release and they stamp it with
a release date of Monday 4 PM ... but I don't see this release update until
I get into the office at 2 PM Tuesday, and thus I quickly enter it into the
CMS and set the atom:updated value to Monday 4 PM.

e.

Re: link element alternate and self

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Sylvain Hellegouarch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-13 13:00]:
> Now I wonder say I have a feed. Each entry has a link element which 
> should indicate the URI of the resource. That resource being a feed 
> itself not an entry.
> 
> In that case should I use self or alternate?

`alternate`.

The purpose of `self` is to embed the URI of the feed inside the
feed, so that an aggregator knows what URI to subscribe to, even
if all it has to go by is the feed document, but not a URI.
That’s all it’s for.

> The term "equivalent" being fairly unclear in this context IMO.

Yes, the wording in the RFC is unfortunate.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

link element alternate and self

[Sylvain Hellegouarch]

Hi all,

From RFC4287:
The value "alternate" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href 
attribute identifies an alternate version of the resource described by 
the containing element.
The value "self" signifies that the IRI in the value of the href 
attribute identifies a resource equivalent to the containing element.



Now I wonder say I have a feed. Each entry has a link element which 
should indicate the URI of the resource. That resource being a feed 
itself not an entry.


In that case should I use self or alternate? Is it an equivalent 
resource or an alternate version of it? The term "equivalent" being 
fairly unclear in this context IMO. I assume instead of "alternate 
version" it should have been "alternate representation" right?



What's the best practices?

Thanks,
- Sylvain