On 5/2/05 12:14 PM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{{{ 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.
}}}
First sentence no, but the
(I.e., I could come up with the UseLexicalOrdering extension, and
require processors to understand it to use the feed, assuming our
extensibility model supports that, which I very much hope it will).
Ok, well I am assuming that we wont have MustUnderstand extensions, therefore
On 5 Feb 2005, at 11:20, David Powell wrote:
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
entries in any order, unless a specific ordering is required by an
extension.
Given a model of only informative
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:25:50 -0800, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My preference would be something like
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
entries in any order, unless a
On Feb 5, 2005, at 6:26 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:25:50 -0800, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
entries in any order, unless a
On Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 09:42 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 5, 2005, at 6:26 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:25:50 -0800, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document.
Tim Bray wrote:
I'm +1 on both Mark and Joe's version, slightly stronger on Joe's
because I don't think we need drag extensions in.
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
entries in any order,
On Feb 5, 2005, at 4:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
You put this in terms of databases and I put the question in terms of
graphs (which if you
have an rdf database to store your triples comes to the same thing).
And my feeling is here that we should not have to keep the sequence
numbers of the
On 5 Feb 2005, at 18:48, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On Feb 5, 2005, at 4:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
You put this in terms of databases and I put the question in terms of
graphs (which if you
have an rdf database to store your triples comes to the same thing).
And my feeling is here that we should
On 3 Feb 2005, at 12:18 am, David Powell wrote:
{{{ 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.
}}}
First sentence no, but the second sentence
My preference would be something like
This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry
elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY present
entries in any order, unless a specific ordering is required by an
extension.
(I.e., I could come up with the
11 matches
Mail list logo
