<co-chair-mode>
Please see the dialogue below.
</co-chair-mode>
(Eric's point seems plausible to me; personally I'd be inclined to a
+1.)
<co-chair-mode>
Can we have some feedback from the WG ASAP? We want to take
protocol-11 to the IETF.
</co-chair-mode>
-Tim
On Sep 26, 2006, at 4:59 PM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 27/9/06 8:15 AM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PaceAppEdited: Lots of discussion. There seems universal support for
the utility of an app:edited element, and an assertion that entry
members SHOULD contain one. On the other hand, every discussion of
sort order has spiraled instantly into a rat-hole.
Conclusion. PaceAppEdited is accepted, in part. The second part of
the proposal, defining the app:edited element, is ACCEPTED. The
first part, imposing a requirement on the sort order of collections,
clearly does not have consensus support.
There also seems to be universal support for the notion that
collection
feeds could be sorted by something other than what's currently in
the spec.
The spec currently not only says collections are to be sorted by
atom:updated, but because of the MUST it also says it MUST NOT be
sorted by
anything *else*, which is a problem.
Section 10.0 ΒΆ 2 says this:
The entries in the returned Atom Feed MUST be ordered by their
"atom:updated" property, with the most recently updated entries
coming first in the document order. Clients SHOULD be constructed
in consideration of the fact that changes which do not alter the
atom:updated value of an entry will not affect the position of
the entry in a Collection.
We need to either strike that entire paragraph, or at the very
least make
that MUST into a SHOULD.
I say +1 to s/MUST/SHOULD/
e.
