On 11/18/09 10:48 PM, Ville Varis wrote: A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting so bad? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying behavior on email discussion lists?
;-) > Ok, that is realy the answer for using 'ver' instead of timestamps, true > and thanks. Should be seen there, I was thinking too much from > algorithmic point of view forgetting some realities :) > > All the rest from my post, I still agree with that 'ver' should be able > to placed by publisher and this feature must be optional. Reasoning for > Service to generate 'Ver' exists, and that is good for sure for many cases. > > My main point being there exists also reasoning and use cases to allow > publisher to set 'Ver' What are the use cases for allowing the publisher to set the 'ver'? Maybe we need some other tracking device (perhaps a per-item counter so that you know this is the 3rd update to a particular item or whatever) but I don't see a need to allow the publisher to specify the 'ver' (just as we wouldn't allow an IM client to set the 'ver' for the roster). /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
