[uf-discuss] Hatom question

[Frances Berriman]

On 10/09/2007, David Janes <davidjanes at blogmatrix.com> wrote:
> On 9/10/07, Frances Berriman <fberriman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aye - it's that slip of the tongue which seems all too common when
> > discussing posting dates that causes the confusion, in my opinion.
> > Published and updated tend to be rather interchangeable terms for
> > authors.
> >
> > As for the inconsistency - I'm not sure to be honest.  I assume it's
> > an over-sight on the contributors part.  If no one has any clear
> > reason why it should say one thing in one place, and another somewhere
> > else, then I'd advise it to be clarified to match our conversation
> > here.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying about the honest part.
>
> Atom entries MUST have "updated" [1]. Many blogging tools (blogger,
> for example) only provide "published" and most templates we have seen
> only use "published". Thus this is the way we get the hAtom rules.
>
> If there's an inconsistency in the hAtom spec, please point it out and
> I'll work on correcting it.
>
> Regards, etc...
>
> [1] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#requiredEntryElements
>

There is... reffering back to Michaels original post..

http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema says "updated. required
using datetime-design-pattern."

whereas http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated says "an
Entry SHOULD have an Entry Updated element"

The first suggests a must and the second a should.  It's just a bit
confusing, so any help to iron that out would be fabulous. :)

-- 
Frances Berriman
http://fberriman.com