[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Posted PaceEntryOrder (was Entry order)
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:25:50 -0800, Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My preference would be something like
> This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
> elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
> entries in any order, unless a specific ordering is required by an
> (I.e., I could come up with the UseLexicalOrdering extension, and
> require processors to understand it to use the feed, assuming our
> extensibility model supports that, which I very much hope it will).
-1 Atom is a Must Ignore format.
I would prefer:
"""The order of atom:entry elements is typically in reverse
chronological order, though feeds MAY be constructed
with entries in any order, and this specification assigns
no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document."""
There is no reason to even mention how the CLIENT presents the order
of the entries
in this spec.
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org