Having started agreeing with the initial post, and having read more of
the
thread I am now divided about what the best position is.
In some sense the order is of the entries should not matter. All the
important
data to order the entries is in the entries themselves given by the
modified date,
On Feb 5, 2005, at 5:36 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:21:50 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be
considered significant.
+1.
+1 - I don't care whether we say MUST NOT, or the other wording
floating around about
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-05 08:40-0800]
On Feb 5, 2005, at 5:36 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:21:50 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be
considered significant.
+1.
+1 - I don't
Graham wrote:
On 5 Feb 2005, at 4:40 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
I totally can't think of a reasonable use-case in which preserving the
feed order matters.
- The Macintouch feed is ordered in the same way as the home page, and
makes no sense viewed chronologically
- The BBC News feeds have the most
Danny Ayers wrote:
The killer problem of using doc order is that the feed data *will*
be aggregated and republished.
Precisely! As the blogosphere grows and as the number of feeds grow,
I feel it is inevitable that we are simply going to have to give up the
current feed-oriented focus
Graham wrote:
You're shockingly small-minded sometimes Tim.
Do we really need to have this stuff in this forum?
The Macintouch and BBC News feeds that you provide as examples
simply demonstrate that there is a need for some mechanism to specify order
relationships between
--On February 3, 2005 11:21:50 PM -0500 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Powell wrote:
It looks like this might have got lost accidently when the
atom:head element was introduced. Previously Atom 0.3 said [1]:
Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 4, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
Is this a joke? This is like saying that the order of the entries in my
mailbox is not significant. Note that ordering a mailbox by date is not
the same thing as its native order.
Except for, Atom entries have a *compulsory*
--On February 4, 2005 11:44:31 AM -0800 Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 4, 2005, at 11:27 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
Is this a joke? This is like saying that the order of the entries in my
mailbox is not significant. Note that ordering a mailbox by date is not
the same thing as
If clients are told to ignore the order, and given only an updated timestamp,
there is no way to show most recent headlines...
At a single moment within a feedstream, sure... but the next time an
entry is added to that feed, I'll have no problem letting the user
know that this is new stuff.
--On February 4, 2005 4:28:53 PM -0600 Roger B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If clients are told to ignore the order, and given only an updated timestamp,
there is no way to show most recent headlines...
At a single moment within a feedstream, sure... but the next time an
entry is added to that
David Powell wrote:
It looks like this might have got lost accidently when the
atom:head element was introduced. Previously Atom 0.3 said [1]:
Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be
considered significant.
+1.
The order of entries in an Atom feed
12 matches
Mail list logo
