Subject: Re: Propose partial consensus on dates

From: "Arve Bersvendsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:15:43 +0200

* First, quoting Graham <[email-masked]>
> > And <updated>? I liked that. Sam liked it. It solves a major problem 
> > (we can't go to version 1.0 without a real mechanism for flagging 
> > updated entries - and the <supercedes> nonsense is a non-starter).

Instead of labelling a _mechanism_ as "nonsense", could you please qualify
the failures of an explicit mechanism for "superseding".

* Then, Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
> Er it's possible I may have conflated "updated" and "modified"... 
> someone want to explain the difference?

I am -1 on using "Updated". Part of the reasoning should be found in this
simple question: Any "modification" is an "update".

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:37:14 -0400

> the failures of an explicit mechanism for "superseding".

I was summarizing my position from previous discussion about it. See 
here:
  http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg06940.html

> simple question: Any "modification" is an "update".

Only if you define it that way.

Graham