[Standards] Privacy lists and the order of items

Waqas Hussain waqas20 at gmail.com
Mon May 11 23:28:00 UTC 2009


On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 5/11/09 1:59 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>> Also, I'm wondering why the order attribute is used on privacy lists'
>>> items, instead of using the implicit order of the items.
>>
>> I always wondered that myself. I assume it's historical baggage. A
>> pity though, because it makes things needlessly complicated to
>> implement on both client and server side.
>
> Can you trust the order of items?
>
Err, explain to me why you wouldn't. Order of nodes (except attributes
on an element) is significant in XML. An XML vocabulary may not make
use of it, but I don't see why you wouldn't want to in this case. I
don't know of a single XML-traversal API that wouldn't let you iterate
over the items in document-order (indeed, in pretty much all, that's
either the only, or the most convenient traversal method).

If the decision to use the order attribute was only due to lack of
trust of the intrinsic item order, then the answer to (a) in my
original post is yes, and maybe to (b) too. Right?

By the way, if you can't trust the order of your XML, the various XMPP
specs' dependency on in-order processing would be affected. Sending
multiple stanzas in a single TCP/BOSH packet would start having
consequences.

> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
--
Waqas Hussain



More information about the Standards mailing list