Subject: Consensus probe on PaceUpdatedDefinition

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:23:06 -0800

Greetiings again. As usual, it's pretty hard to gauge consensus on 
this one. It seems that people change their views during the day, 
sometimes based on a passing "how about if I took out these three 
words", sometimes just because. Other folks seem pretty solid.

The draft says:

-----
    The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the most
    recent instant in time when a change to the entry was made that the
    publisher wishes to bring to the attention of subscribers.  For
    example, such changes might not include minor adjustments like
    spelling and grammatical corrections.
-----

The exact wording from the Pace we're talking about is:

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

So, please reply on this thread, saying:

A) I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace.

B) The new wording from the Pace, and the exact old wording from the 
draft, are both really unacceptable, but the following would be 
fine/OK with me:

    [[ fill in here ]]

C) The exact old wording in the draft is the best it can be; please 
don't change it at all.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:39:17 +0100

A)

-- 
Sascha Carlin
website: http://www.itst.org/
blog: http://www.itst.org/web/
mailto: [email-masked]
icq: 99327847
skype: saschacarlin

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:33:46 -0500

I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace.

---

From: [email-masked] (John Panzer)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:48:55 -0800

> A) I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace.

+1.  (+0 on the draft wording.)

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 23:10:18 +0100

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:18:11 +0000

Both are equally mediocre. A is slightly clearer.

Graham

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:27:06 +0000

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> draft, are both really unacceptable, but the following would be fine/OK 
> with me:

[[[
The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the time 
when the [feed/entry] was changed. Not all modifications to an entry 
require a changed atom:updated value.
]]]

cheers
Bill

---

From: "Roger B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:36:28 -0600

--
Roger

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:38:28 -0700

> C) The exact old wording in the draft is the best it can be; please 
I'm okay with the exact wording of the draft, but it could be improved 
by replacing the last sentence with examples. For example:

------
The "atom:updated" element is a Date construct indicating the most 
recent instant in time when a change to the entry was made that the 
publisher wishes to bring to the attention of subscribers.

The following examples illustrate how a publisher might decide whether 
or not to alter atom:updated. However, as the decision is left to the 
discretion of the publisher, these examples are not to be considered 
normative:

* Spelling corrections which do not significantly affect the meaning or 
readability of an entry might not warrant altering atom:updated:

    Original: "I carved a pumkin on Halloween."
    Corrected: "I carved a pumpkin on Halloween."

* Spelling corrections which significantly affect the meaning or 
readability of an entry might warrant altering atom:updated:

    Original: "I work in a restaurant. I eat people."
    Corrected: "I work in a restaurant. I seat people."

    Original: "My anme is Moe."
    Corrected: "My name is Joe."

* Rewriting which does not significantly affect the meaning of an entry 
might not warrant altering atom:updated:

    Original: "Yesterday, I went to the store, ate a big lunch, did my 
homework, and watched TV."
    Modified: "Yesterday, I had a big lunch, did some shopping, watched 
TV, and did some homework."

* Rewriting which does significantly affect the meaning of an entry 
might warrant altering atom:updated:

    Original: "Yesterday, I went to the store, ate a big lunch, did my 
homework, and watched TV."
    Modified: "Yesterday, I ate my homework for lunch and bought a big 
TV at the store."

------

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:43:08 -0500

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

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman / IMC
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:23 PM
To: Atom WG
Subject: Consensus probe on PaceUpdatedDefinition

The draft says:

-----

-----

    [[ fill in here ]]

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:38:38 -0800

> A) I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace.

Yes, but the spec should be in English not Latin.  Thus 
s/Ergo/Therefore/

[this is purely an editorial issue and thus I can still say "A)"]

> C) The exact old wording in the draft is the best it can be; please 

BTW, I can live with the old wording too. -Tim

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:17:12 -0800 (PST)

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #222
I reserve the right to execute any henchmen who appear to be a little too intelligent, powerful, or devious. However if I do so, I will not at some subsequent point shout "Why am I surrounded by these incompetent fools?!"

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com

---

From: David Czarnecki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:53:04 -0500

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 12:52:23 +1100

> draft, are both really unacceptable, but the following would be

modula s/Ergo/Therefore/

e.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:26:46 +0900

C) is best, A) is okay. Adding examlpes would improve things in both cases.
There is a limit to how much more we can improve the text; ultimately,
implementers and users will either get it or not.

Regards,    Martin.

draft, are both really unacceptable, but the following would be fine/OK with me:
 >
 >    [[ fill in here ]]
 >
 >C) The exact old wording in the draft is the best it can be; please don't 
change it at all.

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:15:33 +0000

Random thought:

  "The last time the entry was brought up to date"

?

Graham

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:48:24 +0100

> A) I'm fine/OK with the exact new wording in the Pace.

I like the new wording better than the one that's in the current  
specification. +1 to A), iow.

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