Subject: RE: Consensus probe on PaceUpdatedDefinition

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:45:04 -0500

[My apologies if this ends up on the list twice...]

If we must have atom:updated, then the new wording is about as good as it
can get.

However, I would much prefer if we used distinct mechanisms to indicate the
time of the change and the significance of the change. Let's stop
overloading this date value as I proposed in:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11110.html

		bob wyman

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:00:15 -0700

> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11110.html
If there is a viable way to separate the two, I don't see a problem 
with it, but the method proposed is problematic:

> 	<modified>...</modified><importance>high</importance>
> 	Or
> 	<modified importance="high">...</modified>

The problem with both stems from the probability of a polling 
aggregator missing an important modification if an entry is first 
modified "importantly" and then trivially between polls.  A small 
change would fix that problem:

    <modified>...</modified><important-revision-id>2</important-revision>
    Or
    <modified important-revision-id="2">...</modified>

Any value that hasn't been used yet for that entry could appear in the 
place of "2". Serial numbers would be the most obvious method, but as 
long as the value is unique for that entry, it could be compared to a 
cached value to determine whether the publisher had made a change they 
wanted to flag since the last time the entry was seen.

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 00:03:12 +0100

> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11110.html

I agree with the thrust of your analysis, but our process does seem to
make it difficult to make decisions about more than one construct at a
time. However the same meaning as [importance="high", date] is
expressed in atom:updated as it stands. The addition of atom:modified
would complete the picture.

I accept there is resistance to the addition of atom:modified, but
perhaps there's some combination of mandatory/optional possible with
these two elements which would make a compromise for consensus?

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com