9546 2010-04-17 10:13:02 +0000 computing atom:updated 2010-12-01 15:35:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT VERIFIED INVALID NE P2 normal --- 1 julian.reschke ian annevk ian mike Ms2ger public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 35120 0 julian.reschke 2010-04-17 10:13:02 +0000 The computation of the atom:updated timestamp for *updated* entries (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4287.html#rfc.section.4.2.15>) surprisingly depends on the presence of <ins>/<del> markup (see <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/interactive-elements.html#atom>, Step 15/13). There's nothing really *wrong* about that, but I think the specification needs to clarify that if you don't use <ins>/<del> (with timestamps) on an updated entry, the generated atom:updated will be incorrect. Furthermore, Step 15/15: "If publication date and update date both still have no value, then let them both value a value that is a valid global date and time string representing the global date and time of the moment that this algorithm was invoked." appears to handle the case where no date information is available at all, letting it default to the current date. Again, generating feeds where atom:updated varies with every run of the algorithm seems to be a bad idea to me and supports the argument that producing output for insufficient input data is problematic. 35125 1 ian 2010-04-18 03:14:29 +0000 Does anyone disagree that producing output for insufficient input data is problematic? You make it sound like it's controversial or something... 35127 2 julian.reschke 2010-04-18 09:52:40 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Does anyone disagree that producing output for insufficient input data is > problematic? You make it sound like it's controversial or something... If it's not controversial why not state upfront that the algorithm may produce invalid data, and thus before publishing it should be verified? 37236 3 ian 2010-08-04 20:25:43 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: This section is no longer in the W3C HTML5 spec. 37238 4 julian.reschke 2010-08-04 21:15:23 +0000 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#atom still has the spec text, and has an issue tracker entry form pointing to *this* issue tracker. Please fix either the spec, or the way you use the issue tracker for your spec. 37500 5 ian 2010-08-16 21:49:34 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Invalid use of the bug tracking system.