David Powell wrote:
Monday, February 7, 2005, 7:23:15 PM, you wrote:
I'm +1 on the Pace as written. I'd be equally +1 on a modifed Pace where "SHOULD NOT" was used in place of "MUST NOT".
Sam, have you misread the Pace? The only occurrence of "MUST NOT" is in the Rationale, where it has been copied from Atom 0.3 as an example.
The proposal is to add the following paragraph:
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry elements within the feed. Processors MAY present entries in a different order to which they are appear in an Atom Feed Document.
Also, Walter's comment seems to suggest the same confusion:
-1. I don't see the benefit. Clients MAY re-order them, but that doesn't mean they MUST ignore the order. The publisher may prefer an order which cannot be expressed in the attributes. The Macintouch and BBC New feeds cited before are good examples.
I'll try to be a bit more conservative with the PRE tags in future :)
Yes, I misread it. To be clear:
1) I am +1 to the original wording that somehow got "lost". 2) I am +1 to the proposed rewording.
Ultimately, the sentiment that I want conveyed is that publishers are not safe to assume that clients will read anything into the order.
- Sam Ruby
