* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-02-05 08:40-0800] > > > On Feb 5, 2005, at 5:36 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > > >On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:21:50 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be > >>>>considered significant. > > > >+1. > > +1 - I don't care whether we say "MUST NOT", or the other wording > floating around about "this specification assigns no semantics", but I > am 100% against assigning any meaning to the order in which things > appear in the feed.
+1 Although I could've lived with order being declared meaningful. The worst case is when it isn't clear whether ordering info must be preserved. Aside: sometimes in RSS1 item order relates to characteristics of the things described by the documents in the feed, rather than the docs directly (eg. job adverts, upcoming movies, ...). Dan Dan
