7 May
2015
7 May
'15
10:52 a.m.
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:31:23AM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
As far as I know this was not explicitly specified beforehand, so it would be good to have a clear WG consensus call on this now.
+1
ref ambiguity: OK for the consensus call or OK for the proposed behaviour? While I have been using the (older) timestamps as a hint for (potentially reduced) quality in the past, it is obvious that a more recent timestamp does not really provide as much confidence as an explicit data validation timestamp, so routine updates might actually be detrimental to the intented goal if too much is read into the last-modified timestamp. -Peter