It's late here, but since I have been called...
Clearly the order of the entries could not be deduced from the tags
themselves.
One would need to have an extra tag in there such as this <position> tag
<feed>
<entry>
<id>tag:first-in-list</id>
<ext:position>1</position>
<title>The Graphes of Wrath</title>
<update>1 July 2005</udpated>
...
</entry>
...
</feed>
to specify the order of the entry. I think at the time I was talking
in the context
of that being proposed.
Again it is late, but I think my idea of having a entry always stay
at the same position
was that I was thinking that from one week to another one could just
change the content
of the entry
<feed>
<entry>
<id>tag:first-in-list</id>
<ext:position>1</position>
<title>Of Mice and Men</title>
<update>8 July 2005</udpated>
...
</entry>
</feed>
So that one could still think of a feed as a sequence of changes to
resources. One
would then, I thought, not need to republish the whole list of
entries, just
those that changed from week to week. As a result there was I
thought, no need for
a <stateful> tag.
But the problem with that suggestion was that it could not cope well
with mistaken
feed updates. So that if I mistakenly entered "Of Mice and Men" but I
meant to
enter "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" then adding the
following entry
<feed>
<entry>
<id>tag:first-in-list</id>
<ext:position>1</position>
<title>The Restaurant at the end of the Universe</title>
<update>8 July 2005</udpated>
...
</entry>
</feed>
would tend to indicate that the change was insignificant, whereas a
change
of date would tend to indicate that the there was a new entry in
first position.
Some proposed that one should distinguish therefore between the
update time of the
entry and the update time of the object of the entry...
Henry
On 30 Aug 2005, at 23:35, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Bob Wyman wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has
proposed extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve
got folk who are proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful,
incremental or partitioned feeds)… I think they are wrong. Feeds
aren’t lists and Lists aren’t feeds. It seems to me that if you
want a “Top 10” list, then you should simply create an entry that
provides your Top 10. Then, insert that entry in your feed so that
the rest of us can read it. If you update the list, then just
replace the entry in your feed. If you create a new list (Top 34?)
then insert that in the feed along with the “Top10” list.
Henry Story also proposed atom:id to be "order-related":
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
...
<entry>
<id>tag:first-in-list</id>
<title>Some entry</title>
...
</entry>
<entry>
<id>tag:second-in-list</id>
<title>Another entry</title>
...
</entry>
</feed>
and a bit later:
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
...
<entry>
<id>tag:first-in-list</id>
<title>Another entry</title>
...
</entry>
<entry>
<id>tag:second-in-list</id>
<title>Yet another entry</title>
...
</entry>
</feed>
Note how tag:first-in-list entry now represents "Another entry"
while it were previously "Some entry", and tag:second-in-list now
is "Yet another entry" while it were "Another entry".
--
Thomas Broyer
