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
