> I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
A lot of the opposition comes from the fact the WG found it useless,
months ago. Allowing multiple atom:ids in a feed doesn't change that.
You want to sit here and talk about atom:modified for another month?
For an optional
On 21/5/05 5:32 PM, "David Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it help if we said that if the atom:modified element is absent,
> its value MAY be taken from the atom:updated element? (or to put it
> another way: atom:modified MAY be omitted if its value is equivalent
> to the value of atom
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 8:44:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> David Powell wrote:
>> I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
>> that it is a REQUIRED element and that many of the publishers actually
>> putting it in the feed and paying for the bandwidth don't inte
David Powell wrote:
I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
that it is a REQUIRED element and that many of the publishers actually
putting it in the feed and paying for the bandwidth don't intend using
it frequently?
Would it help if we said that if the atom:modif
I detect that a lot of opposition to atom:modified comes from the fact
that it is a REQUIRED element and that many of the publishers actually
putting it in the feed and paying for the bandwidth don't intend using
it frequently?
Would it help if we said that if the atom:modified element is absent