Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "David Megginson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"XML Developers List" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Updates (was Re: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?)
- From: "Joshua Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:26:26 -0800
- Thread-index: AcPqnCHUfqarZDbrTQCBP4PO5LGwKgAEJe+Q
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Updates (was Re: [xml-dev] best practice for providing newsfeeds ?)
> > Our customers did. They wanted to be able to distinguish clearly
> > new and updated articles, because our news is updated for the most
> > when we make a mistake, and if we don't correct errors, people can
> > because their doctors gave them 150 instead of 15 mg of some drug.
> > That could be any of you.
> And more generally, the wire services update news stories all the time
> you read a breaking story on Yahoo!, then go back in half an hour, the
> are that you'll be reading a slightly different version (with a new
> quotation, an extra detail, an small correction, etc.).
Well, clearly I misunderestimated the desire for differentiation between
new and updated.
Of course, *no* scheme will work without being able to identify the
article uniquely, and once you have that, you have a number of options
available for tracking updates, not all of which require metadata
embedded in the feed. And personally, I dislike change-tracking
embedded in the feed, since feed providers can just lie and screw it up
anyway. Most source control systems manage by just doing a diff,
comparing file hashes, or whatever.