Subject: PaceDateUpdated2 status

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:50 -0800

If there were no further discussion: This topic was beaten to death a 
few times in the WG. Unless there is a wave of enthusiasm unaccompanied 
by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be all that ships 
with the final document. -Tim

---

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:01:41 +0100

> with the final document. -Tim

+1.  I think this really is a consensus.

FYI: <http://www.itst.org/web/308-atom_04.shtml>

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:33:02 +0000

On 25 Jan 2005, at 12:17 am, Tim Bray wrote:

> few times in the WG. Unless there is a wave of enthusiasm 
> unaccompanied by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be 
> all that ships with the final document. -Tim

The language in the current draft is much cleaner, and I'd like to keep 
that. Since not much of this Pace is compatible with that language, the 
Pace itself is a -1.

BUT, making the updated date optional is something I support. Anyone 
else?

Graham

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:58:16 +1100

> with the final document. -Tim

This pace sought to clarify the distinction between date-updated and
date-modified, and thus presumes the existence of <date-modified>, which got
killed. It was written back in atom-01 days.

As author, if I were to be considering bringing it up to date I would be
changing the MAY to MUST, and otherwise dropping the last three paragraphs
as redundant fluff.

-1

I would suggest though that the word "modified" as in the current spec be
avoided... that is, change the 04 spec text from this:

    The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the
    most recent instant in time when the entry was modified in a
    way the producer considers significant. Therefore, not all
    modifications necessarily result in a changed atom:updated
    value.

to something like this:

    The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the
    most recent instant in time when the entry was changed in a
    way the producer considers significant. Therefore, not all
    changes necessarily result in a changed atom:updated value.

The rationale for this is to avoid falsely giving hints that atom:updated
should be blindly used for date-modified. Is this an editor-level change, or
does it need a Pace?

e.

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:28:36 +1100

> BUT, making the updated date optional is something I support. Anyone

I originally thought so, but was willing to bend to the will of the
developers that didn't like having an element that may or may not be there
and thus required some manner of implied value or some such so sorting etc
would work in some predictable manner.

In a world where date-updated is optional, is it implied that an entry with
no date-updated has a "last significant change date" being the
date-published?

I'd like it to be optional. If optional, then it's easy to leave out for
those publishing systems that don't facilitate a method for subjectively
marking an modification/edition/change as being "significant", and by not
being required to be filled with something would thus not appear to so
tempting a target for "date of last modification, no matter how trivial or
banal".

Did someone do a survey of what date concepts the various blog publishing
systems support?

e.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:03:35 +0100

> Did someone do a survey of what date concepts the various blog publishing

Yes: <url: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/BlogToolDateSurvey>

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»