Subject: atom:updated handling

From: "James Yenne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:07:35 -0800

I'm using the feedvalidtor.org to validate a feed with entries containing
atom:updated that may have the same datetime, although different atom:id.
The validator complains that two entries cannot have the same value for
atom:updated. I generate these feeds and the generator uses the current
datetime, which may be exactly the same. I don't understand why the
validator should care about these updated values from different entries per
atom:id - these are totally unrelated entries.   Is the validator wrong?  It
seems that otherwise I have to play tricks to make these entries have
different updated within the feed.
 
I'm not sure how this relates to the thread "More on atom:id handling"
 
Thanks,
James

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:16:53 -0800

--On February 15, 2006 4:07:35 PM -0800 James Yenne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> atom:updated.

I got the same spurious warning. My feed is search results, so it is
perfectly OK for them to have the same atom:updated.

It is OK for the validator to point this out, but it should be informational,
not a warning.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Software Architect, Autonomy

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:25:35 -0800

I personally think that the feedvalidator is being too anal about
updated handling.  Entries with the same atom:id value MUST have
different updated values, but the spec says nothing about entries with
different atom:id's.

- James

James Yenne wrote:
> I'm using the feedvalidtor.org to validate a feed with entries
> containing atom:updated that may have the same datetime, although
> different atom:id. The validator complains that two entries cannot have
> the same value for atom:updated. I generate these feeds and the
> generator uses the current datetime, which may be exactly the same. I
> don't understand why the validator should care about these
> updated values from different entries per atom:id - these are totally
> unrelated entries.   Is the validator wrong?  It seems that otherwise I
> have to play tricks to make these entries have different updated within
> the feed.
>

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:29:22 -0800

It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer errors.
But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:45:03 +0100

* Walter Underwood <[email-masked]> [2006-02-16 01:40]:
>It doesn't hurt to point it out. It could catch some developer
>errors. But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder

The validator does not say the feed is invalid. It merely throws
a warning, saying the feed is valid but may cause problems for
some users.

I think that’s still too much – it’s certainly not on par with
other warnings for SHOULD-level requirements (f.ex., a feed
missing a `rel="self"` link will validate with a warning).

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

---

From: Phil Ringnalda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:50:30 -0800

> But it doesn't make an invalid feed. --wunder

Which is why the message you are given is found at
http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html with the
accent on the */warning/*.

Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.

Phil Ringnalda

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:58:12 -0500

> Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.
The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at:
http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) 

"For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing
 system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were
 published during the course of a single day."

Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the
same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course
of multiple days...

It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: "It would not
be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they
were published simultaneously."

	bob wyman

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:17:43 -0500

> were published simultaneously."

As you might imagine, given the context of syndication, the Feed
Validator has the potential for being in the center of controversy.  One
of the reasons why it has avoided being such is that I try to rely
directly on the wording from the spec whenever possible.

http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php#rfc.section.3.3

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:07:49 -0500

/ Sam Ruby <[email-masked]> was heard to say:
| Bob Wyman wrote:
|> Phil Ringnalda wrote:
|> 
|>>Patches that will make that more clear are welcome.
|> 
|> The warning message that Phil points to says in part: (at:
|> http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/DuplicateUpdated.html) 
|> 
|> "For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing
|>  system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were
|>  published during the course of a single day."
|> 
|> Of course, this leads one to wonder if it might be appropriate to apply the
|> same timestamp to several entries if they were published during the course
|> of multiple days...
|> 
|> It would make a great deal more sense to say something like: "It would not
|> be appropriate to apply the same timestamp to several entries unless they
|> were published simultaneously."
| As you might imagine, given the context of syndication, the Feed
| Validator has the potential for being in the center of controversy.  One
| of the reasons why it has avoided being such is that I try to rely
| directly on the wording from the spec whenever possible.
| http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/atom-format-spec.php#rfc.section.3.3

I think that's pretty good justification for the current text, but I'd
like to say that was surprised by that message when I got it.

The atom:updated dates on my essays come from the timestamp of my
Subversion commit so it is reasonable sometimes to have identical
atom:updated values.

I would have been less confused (though I was only momentarily
confused in any event) by something along the lines of what Phil
suggests.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | Being forced to write comments actually
http://nwalsh.com/            | improves code, because it is easier to
                              | fix a crock than to explain it.--G.
                              | Steele