[Standards] RSM and order

Guus der Kinderen guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 21:23:30 UTC 2012


Was it a deliberate choice not to include an explicit attribute that
relates to 'order' in XEP-0059 - Result Set Management?

XEP-0059 RSM is oriented towards a GUI that contains a scrollable list (in
which order is often implied, I guess). A different common GUI element is
that of a paginated table. That would work well with RSM (as long as you do
not relax the requirement of accuracy on the 'index' value). A common
feature of such tables is the ability to sort data by column - which is how
I noticed that any form of 'ordering' is missing from the XEP.

Any form of iteration (using more than one request) depends on the fact
that each request uses a result set that's ordered in the same way. There
is no reference to such ordering in the XEP at all. Strictly speaking, I
think the XEP could use (well, it's been in use for years and no-one missed
it, but hey) a reference to ordering, even if its to be implicit.

If functionality could be added that can be used to define ordering of a
result set, the XEP becomes a lot more flexible. I'm not advocating that a
lot more flexibility should be added - although I'm not denying that it
could have considerable added value.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20120210/ed0c4ff5/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list