Subject: Re: atom:created same as atom:modified?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:45:24 +0200

*Norman Walsh:

> |    If atom:created is not present, its content MUST considered to be the
> |    same as that of atom:modified.
> 
> I would have expected it to be the same as atom:issued. I'm not sure
> either is really the obviously correct answer. Is there value in
> providing a default if it isn't specified?

I'm not sure specifying it as either is a good option.	To my ears,
"created", is a machine-generated-date entered when the entry first enters
the publishing system, never again to be changed.

Opening the can of worms again:
My suggestion is making all of created, issued and modified MUST dates. Make
them objective dates, and provide an optional subjective, freeform
"displaydate" element.

Since CMSes have to be changed anyway to provide (meaningful) Atom support, I
suggest that these applications,  set created to be the earliest of any
"issued" or "modified" date when updating their database schemes.

-- 
Arve Bersvendsen

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:58:53 +0200

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:45:24 +0200, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> My suggestion is making all of created, issued and modified MUST dates.  
> Make them objective dates, and provide an optional subjective, freeform
> "displaydate" element.

+1.

> Since CMSes have to be changed anyway to provide (meaningful) Atom  
> support, I suggest that these applications,  set created to be the  
> earliest
> of any "issued" or "modified" date when updating their database schemes.

Indeed.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»