On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 18/10/05 2:04 AM, "Antone Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd prefer that our use of 'prev' and 'next' be consistent with
other uses
elsewhere, where 'next' traverses from the current position to
the one that
*follows*, whether in time or logical order. Consider the use of
'first/next/prev/last' with chapters or sections rendered in HTML.
...so do you follow forward through time or backward? Is the
starting
"current position" "now" or the "the beginning of time"?
Especially if we're
talking about history, following backward makes as much sense as
following
forward.
You can "start" wherever you want, but the @rel='first' archive is the
archive which contains the first entry that ever existed. Why would
the
@rel='first' archive contain the last entry created, that makes no
sense.
Here's how "first" pointing to the last entry created could make
sense--it's pointing not to the first entry, but to the first page in
a chain of pages of entries. In that case, "first" points to the
starting point, whether that be the first entry created or the last.
If you want to go backwards in time, then the "next" archive would
be found
by following the @rel='prev' link .. because you are going backwards!
Consider this: <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/
2005/02/27/2003224800> -- my brother, who has spent time in Taiwan
and China tells me that the Chinese are the same--they think of
themselves as facing the past (which they can see--makes sense)--not
the future. The future is still unseen behind them.
But getting back to what I was saying above, "next in the chain" only
correlate to one particular direction in time if the chain is defined
in terms or a specific direction in time. I face the past when I
look at incremental feeds.
