TriNetre - Archive for February 07, 2004
(no longer updated)
To build a solid foundation!
A Singaporean lady on being asked what they do for a prosperous Chinese New Year.
Scenario - Dual boot machine, Win2K in hda and RH9 on hdc (hdc1 - boot partition). Boot loader is grub. Had to reinstall Win2K. Win2K hijacks MBR. Can't boot into Linux.
Boot from RH9 CD, boot into rescue mode "linux rescue". After searching for existing Linux install, rescue mounts it into /mnt/sysimage. Exit into shell
> chroot /mnt/sysimage
> grub-install /dev/hda
> exit
... the system reboots...
That is it!
This is getting more perplexing the more I think about it. According to Atom 0.3 specification, every feed should have a "atom:modified" element, which " indicates the time when the state of the feed was last modified, including any changes to entries therein".
The specs also talks about "atom:modified" element for each entry, where the element " indicates the time that the entry was last modified".
Now comes the confusion. As per definition, the "atom:modified" element of a feed should be the same as "atom:modified" element of one of the entries in the feed. In short, there is no way the "atom:modified" element of a feed can have a date that is older than "atom:modified" element of any of the entries. If so, how is this possible in Mark Pilgrim's atom feed:
<modified>2004-02-04T19:07:08Z</modified>
For the first entry:
<modified>2004-02-04T19:26:49Z</modified>
[Update] Mark clarifies that since MT does not have any way to figure out the modified date of the last modified entry, he assumes that the last modified entry is his latest entry and hence assigns the modified date of the feed the same value as the modified date of the latest entry. However, there still was an error in his feed because instead of assigning the feed:modified the modified date of first entry, he was assigning the created date of the first entry. That seems to be corrected now.
Another confusing point. The specifications state "atom:entry elements MUST contain an atom:modified element", but "atom:entry elements MAY contain an atom:created element" and "If atom:created is not present, its content MUST considered to be the same as that of atom:modified". Now, I have no idea about the thought process that went behind this clause, since I had not been following the discussion, but logically this doesn't sound right.Anything that exists must have been created. Anything that exists need not have been modified (unless you count the original creation also as modification). An entry has to be created and hence it MUST have a "atom:created". An entry, however, need not have been modified after its initial creation. So it MAY have "atom:modified". So shouldn't it be "If atom:modified is not present, its content MUST considered to be the same as that of atom:created"?
