[uf-discuss] Hatom question
fberriman at gmail.com
Mon Sep 10 08:43:26 PDT 2007
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" . 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...
>  http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#requiredEntryElements
There is... reffering back to Michaels original post..
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema says "updated. required
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. :)
More information about the microformats-discuss