This approach sounds good. Thanks. > There is, however, nothing to stop you from linking other, non- > collection feeds (ie. with a different `rel` value) from the > service document. You'd just need to specify in an extension how > clients can know the ordering of these feeds so they can request > the one they'd like.
Can anyone elaborate some more on why draft 15 is changing the standard ordering to be based on app:edited instead of atom:updated? Wouldn't feed readers be triggering off of atom:updated? Leaving that as the default sort order would allow for optimization in determining significantly changed content as opposed to ordering on app:edited where changes may or may not have been significant. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Pagaltzis Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Order of Entries within a Feed * Becker, Matthew R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-24 13:55]: > My original message referred to a standard ordering. By that I was > referring to APP Draft 14, section 10 "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." That has changed in -draft-15: The Entries in the returned Atom Feed SHOULD be ordered by their "app:edited" property, with the most recently edited Entries coming first in the document order. The app:edited value is not equivalent to the HTTP Last-Modified: header and cannot be used to determine the freshness of cached responses. > Assuming I've interpreted the APP draft correctly, we should be > sending paged feeds where the entries are ordered by > atom:updated. That is the correct interpretation of -draft-14, yes. Again, though, it is moot, because of the -draft-15 changes. > However we have certain clients that would like to see the feed > entries ordered differently (app:edited for example). If you also need feed ordering by something other than `app:edited`, then you can't do that in the collection feed. There is, however, nothing to stop you from linking other, non- collection feeds (ie. with a different `rel` value) from the service document. You'd just need to specify in an extension how clients can know the ordering of these feeds so they can request the one they'd like. > If this were sorted client side, the client would have to > request every page in the feed and sort the large number of > entries. If the client could request the feed sorted properly > to begin with, then the client could stop paging when > app:edited reached the timestamp of the last request. That is exactly the rationale that was put forward for the change in ยง10. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
