Sounds like there's no momentum for adding an at:deleted-since feature to this draft, and that it's better added to a further on sync draft. (We will end up doing something similar in the interim.) Any other opinions? -- m
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Test driving http://five.sentenc.es/
