On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <
mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...and that's not exactly what I was suggesting; I only meant that the at:deleted-entry should appear in the same feed document (i.e., page) as its contemporary atom:entry's.
Cheers,
On 09/05/2008, at 12:43 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
Mark Stahl wrote:
The idea of interleving entries and deleted-entries in edited order sounds
like a good pattern. It's particularly useful for clients attempting to
retrieve the most recent changes.
Earlier in the thread James Snell pointed out that RFC4287 doesn't seem to allow any elements between or after the <atom:entry> elements in a <atom:feed> element.
Also, It would only be useful if the deleted-entries elements were required to be in order along with the entries; otherwise, the client would have to parse the whole feed anyway for out-of-order tombstones.
- Brian