On 8/25/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I'm very familiar with that part of the spec. The quote you > provide still does not answer the question: > > "Does atom:updated apply to *this* feed document, > or the whole, logical feed?"
Ah, we might be talking past each other about two different scenarios. This question is answered for "app:edited" in a Collection Feed, i.e. in the context of an AtomPub Collection Feed only. It does not answer the question for "atom:updated" in an 'Archived Feed'. http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-17.html#listing-collections """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. """ So every Feed Document that makes up a collection has it's entries ordered via "app:edited", and the quote I gave earlier states that: """This next partial list will contain the next most recently edited set of Member Resources (and an atom:link to the following partial list if it exists).""" So there is a total ordering of entries across all the partial feed documents of entries by "app:edited". Would it have been clearer if all the text were located in one place in the spec? Yes. Does it matter that we didn't use the term "logical feed"? No. Is there a conflict with the Feed History I-D? No, since the rel term "next", and others are defined in terms of a "Paged Feed" and not an "Archived Feed". The former having "some kind" of order, the second having an explicit ordering by "atom:updated". Is there ambiguity in the Feed History I-D as to whether the entries in each feed document are ordered by atom:updated? Yes, but I'm not sure that it matters. -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
