It occurred to me that I should think a little more before speaking.
There seems to be a history of the atom spec here:
http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/
I could not find the prev link in any of the specs. So I guess I was
mistaken.
But I also always thought of prev and next as being very good
candidates for
the link element. I never raised my voice against the move at the
time because
I assumed most decisions on this list were good ones.
There is one reference to prev and next here:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/LinkTagMeaning
Henry
On 9 Oct 2005, at 10:47, Henry Story wrote:
I believe it was part of atom 0.3, and for some complex reason I never
bothered trying to understand someone decided it should be moved
over to
the protocol side of things. Probably just because the debate was
taking up
too much time...
So yes. 'prev' and 'next' have always been intended to be there in
the link element...
Henry
On 9 Oct 2005, at 10:39, James Holderness wrote:
Following up on the idea of using atom:link instead of fh:prev, I
recently came across an old article by Mark Pilgrim on XML.com
(http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/16/dive.html) in which he
discusses the atom:link element and the various rel attributes it
supports. He specifically brings up the issue of feed history and
using next and prev to link archives together.
It sounded to me as if he was talking about an existing feature in
the spec - it wasn't like he was proposing it as a new idea. So
was this something that used to be part of an old version of the
spec that was later removed? Or was this an early proposal that
was never accepted into the spec?
Also of interest: there's a link from that article to his archives
on diveintomark.org which actually include next and prev links in
the feed. I'm almost inclined to add support for that just so I
can access those old posts. There used to be some excellent
articles on his site.
