> No, the order of elements does not matter in RSS, but I would
> suggest the preferred order be the order the elements are written up
> in the spec.
> --- In RSS2-Support@yahoogroups.com, "Clinton Gallagher"
> <csgallagher@m...> wrote:
> > When writing the XML is there a preferred order
> > to write the optional elements?
Given that many current aggregators have good sorting features, it's
probably better to let them do their own ordering. This does mean, however,
that actually including timestamps within the items would be required.
There's no other reliable way for an aggregator to order the items
themselves. Otherwise they're forced to fall back on the time the feed was
actually downloaded. But that, however, is actually useful independently of
the item's own timestamp.
Technically, an RSS-1.0 feed denotes the ordering of it's items using the
rdf:Seq container. But that's a much-maligned set of subtleties. As such
it'd probably be better discussed in the rss-dev yahoogroup. It's been
suggested that some sort of "key" be indicated for the rdf:Seq element but
that's a rather big can of worms.