Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has
proposed
extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk
who are
proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful, incremental or
partitioned
feeds)… I think they are wrong. Feeds aren’t lists and Lists
aren’t feeds.
The Atom spec says:
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within the feed.
One could read that to mean that feeds are fundamentally unordered or
that
Atom doesn't say what the order means.
Is not logical order, if any, determined by the datetime of the
published (or updated) element?
Often it makes sense for the order to come from properties of the things
described by the items/entries, rather than publication dates. Examples:
movie listings, job listings, photos by image creation rather than upload
time, etc. Generally, feeds that aren't blog content but are views into some
database, ie. the same kinds of feed that are most likely to use
data-centric
markup extensions.
Atom allows such orderings to be exposed, without requiring that a
machine-friendly justification be given. Seems about right to me.
cheers,
Dan
