Re: Listing Collections & Forbidden Assumptions

["A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxxxxx>]

* Joe Gregorio <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2007-03-12 19:45]:
> When you restart, if you want to re-sync, the collection feed
> is ordered by "atom:updated" so you just need walk back through
> the collection and GET each entry until you hit one that hasn't
> changed.
> 
> At least that's the way it could work, if collections were
> actually ordered by "atom:updated", unfortunately, in Section
> 10 we have [1]:
> 
>  """
>  The Entries in the returned Atom Feed SHOULD be ordered by
>  their "atom:updated" property, with the most recently updated
>  Entries coming first in the document order.
>  """
> 
> Between the fact that it's a SHOULD and not a MUST, and the
> completely useless definition of "atom:updated", you actually
> can't count on that working.
> 
> Of course, we have "app:edited",  which is precisely defined to
> be useful, but collections aren't ordered by "app:edited", and
> so "app:edited" sits in the spec, unused and never mentioned
> outside its definition.
> 
> [1] http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-14.html#listing-collections

Well, the obvious question is then, is it viable at this stage to
switch the section 10 language to `app:edited` instead? And if
so, are there any implications beyond the obvious?

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>