Re: Listing Collections & Forbidden Assumptions

[Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/3/07 6:00 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxxxxx> wrote:

>> 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#listi
>> ng-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?

+1, please revisit this decision, we might have got it wrong. I'd rather
have something work in preference to honoring some holy grail of WG
procedure.

One implication is with the use case of the same atom feed document being
used for both public syndication (where sorting by atom:updated is more
relevant) and for collection listing (where sorting by app:edited is more
relevant). I haven't seen any good arguments as to why someone would
actually do that, considering that URI space is infinite and cheap.

e.