The latest draft is -06 and is available here: http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/atomapi/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-06.html
Section 9 uses atom:updated for the ordering of collections. -joe On 10/31/05, Manuzhai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi there, > > I'm a bit of a n00b when it comes to this stuff, so please don't slap > me with a large trout or anything. > > As I refactored my custom weblogging engine over the weekend I decided > to look at supporting the Atom protocol. I thought it was still named > Atom API, but after I could only find the spec drafts from 2003 on > atomenabled.org and remembering that I saw something newer I looked > around some more and I found draft 5 for the atompub spec [1, > obviously]. So, as I understand it, the Atom API effort was converted > into a more serious atompub-protocol effort. Point: should this maybe > be explained somewhere on the atomenabled.org site? Good to know. > > Next, I started actually reading the spec. One question I have right > now, and it might be stupid since I haven't read all of the mailing > list archives just yet: the spec mentions in the intro of section 8 > that Collection items are ordered by their app:updated element. I > wonder: why isn't the atom:updated element used for that? That would > obviate the need for a Collection-specific app:updated where the Feed > already uses atom:updated. If app:updated was used because items of > Generic Collections also need this ordering, it could still be > mandated that Entry Collections use atom:updated while Generic > Collections need app:updated. > > That may seem like a minor nit, but it just seems, well, illogical. > > Hope this is not too stupid, > > Manuzhai > > [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-05.txt > > -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
