The way I look at this is in terms of a single linked list of feeds.
The ordering of the entries within those feeds is irrelevant. The
individual linked feeds MAY be incremental (e.g. blog entries,etc) or
may be complete (e.g. lists,etc). Simply because a feeds are linked, no
assumption should be made as to whether or not the entries in those
feeds share any form of ordered relationship.
<link rel="first" /> is the first feed in the linked list
<link rel="next" /> is the next feed in the linked list
<link rel="previous" /> is the previous feed in the linked list
<link rel="last" /> is the last feed in the linked list.
Terms like "top", "bottom", "up", "down", etc are meaningless in this
model as they imply an ordering of the contents.
For feed history, it would work something like:
<feed>
...
<link rel="self" href="...feed1" />
<link rel="next" href="...next" />
<link rel="last" href="...feed3" />
...
</feed>
<feed>
...
<link rel="self" href="...feed2" />
<link rel="previous" href="...feed1" />
<link rel="next" href="...feed3" />
<link rel="first" href="...feed1" />
<link rel="last" href="...feed3" />
...
</feed>
<feed>
...
<link rel="self="href="...feed3" />
<link rel="previous" href="...feed2" />
<link rel="first" href="...feed1" />
...
</feed>
- James
Mark Nottingham wrote:
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
