+1 The meaning of these terms depends so much upon the feed it is being used within. That and your own mental model.
If you visualize a feed like this: --- | | | | | | | -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 11:28 AM To: Antone Roundy Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org Subject: Re: Feed History -04 At first I really liked this proposal, but I think that the kind of confusion you're concerned about is unavoidable; the terms you refer to suffer "bottom-up" vs. "top-down." I think that defining the terms well and in relation to the subscription feed will help; after all, the terms don't surface in UIs, so it should be transparent. On 14/10/2005, at 10:37 AM, Antone Roundy wrote: > Which brings me back to "top", "bottom", "up" and "down". In the > OpenSearch case, it's clear which end the "top" results are going > to be found. In the syndication feed case, the convention is to > put the most recent entries at the "top". If you think of a feed > as a stack, new entries are stacked on "top". The fact that these > terms are less generic and flexible than "previous" and "next" is > both an advantage and a disadvantage. I think the question is > whether it's an advantage in a significant majority of cases or > not. What orderings would those terms not work well for? -- 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
