On 07/08/2011 11:51 PM, Justin Karneges wrote: > On Friday, July 08, 2011 04:44:20 AM Sergey Dobrov wrote: >> On 07/08/2011 04:37 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: >>> b) if RSM is used by the server, then items are returned in a >>> node-specific >>> >>> order. >> >> What means "node-specific"? > > I just mean, the ordering would be defined by the node type or node > implementation. For example, XEP-0277 (microblogging) might want to say that > if RSM is used, then items are ordered by modified time ascending. However, > other nodes defined in other XEPs might have different orderings based on > criteria other than dates. Sounds good but there are no nodes that have different behavior based on it's content. Suddenly, node is more low-level term.
> >>> d) if neither RSM nor max_items are used, then items are returned in >>> >>> unspecified order. >> >> Not all payloads can be sorted on client side. I think that we need to >> return some metadata too including creation and modification times as >> well as item publisher. > > Ah probably. I think this is a separate issue from RSM though. Right. But any issue that I trying to discuss about is silently ignored here. I don't know why. > >> Add a "Item ordering" paragraph to XEP-0060? > > I think we just need to complete the description of RSM. There is a strong > feeling, though, that we should not add to XEP-0060 since it is already too > long. However, this dangling underspecified RSM in the spec is a bit odd > IMO. > Here are the options I suggest: > > 1) Add remaining description of RSM into XEP-0060. > > 2) Remove RSM from XEP-0060 (the XEP gets shorter!) and create a separate XEP. Agreed. > > Justin > -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
