[uf-discuss] Hatom question

[David Janes]

On 9/10/07, Frances Berriman <fberriman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2007, Frances Berriman <fberriman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/09/2007, Michael Smethurst <Michael.Smethurst at bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
> > >
> > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
> > >
> > > says it is
> > >
> > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated
> > >
> > > Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that's right.  I've found that many people tend to just use
> > published though (myself included), and forego ever using updated.
> >
> > What're you having problems with?
>
>
> Apologies for the reply to myself, but I just spotted what you mean...
> the schema refers to published as a MUST and the specific information
> as a SHOULD, yeah?
>
> I'd treat updated as a SHOULD.  It's the date in general (published or
> updated) that should be described as the MUST, as far as I'm aware.

You MUST have either on an entry one of:

- "updated"
- "updated" and "published"
- or "published" (which implies an updated value)

As Frances mentions, most people just use "updated", but if your
underlying CMS knows the difference between the publish date and the
updated date and you want to expose this information, you'd be best to
use both.

The peculiarities, such as they are, in this rule come from the
intersection of the MUST requirements in Atom and the real world
examples we found.

Regards, etc...


-- 
David Janes
Founder, BlogMatrix
http://www.blogmatrix.com
http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com