The approach I took in -04 was to say that the pseudo-ordering
introduced by the mechanism was ONLY meaningful for the purposes of
reconstituting the feed; it's still up to the feed itself to
determine what the ordering of entries means (or doesn't). That
avoids a lot of problems, although it does require some careful wording.
Also -- I'd think that the "last" link is already covered by "self,"
no? If not, there's some pretty serious confusion about what 'self'
means.
On 13/10/2005, at 8:01 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
On Oct 13, 2005, at 7:58 PM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 14/10/05 9:18 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Excellent. If this works out, there is an opportunity to merge the
paging behavior of Feed History, OpenSearch and APP collections
into a
single set of paging link relations (next/previous/first/last).
'first' or 'start'?
Do we need to define what 'first' means though? I recall a
dissenting
opinion on the wiki that the 'first' entry could be at either end
of the
list, which could surprise some.
Yeah, that's a good question. Maybe calling them "top" and
"bottom" would work better. Considering that the convention is to
put the newest entry at the top of a feed document, "top" might be
more intuitively understandable as being the new end. You might
also rename "next" and "previous" (or is it "previous" and "next"?)
to "down" and "up". There's SOME chance of that getting confused
with hierarchical levels, but I could live with that.
--
Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO BEA Systems
________________________________________________________________________________
BEAWorld 2005: coming to a city near you. Everything you need for SOA and
enterprise infrastructure success.
Register now at http://www.bea.com/4beaworld
London 11-12 Oct| Paris13-14 Oct| Prague18-19 Oct |Tokyo 25-26 Oct| Beijing 7-8
Dec
