Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RSS2-Support] Re: Order of optional elements?

Expand Messages
  • Bill Kearney
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.

      -Bill Kearney
      Syndic8.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.