...and that's not exactly what I was suggesting; I only
meant that the
at:deleted-entry should appear in the same feed document
(i.e., page)
as its contemporary atom:entry's.
Cheers,
On 09/05/2008, at 12:43 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> Mark Stahl wrote:
>> The idea of interleving entries and deleted-entries
in edited order
>> sounds
>> like a good pattern. It's particularly useful for
clients
>> attempting to
>> retrieve the most recent changes.
>
> Earlier in the thread James Snell pointed out that
RFC4287 doesn't
> seem to allow any elements between or after the
<atom:entry>
> elements in a <atom:feed> element.
>
> Also, It would only be useful if the deleted-entries
elements were
> required to be in order along with the entries;
otherwise, the
> client would have to parse the whole feed anyway for
out-of-order
> tombstones.
>
> - Brian
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
|
