On 10/17/05, Byrne Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "next" and "previous" are as James points out, orthogonal to ordering. > The debate as to whether the next set goes backwards or forwards in time > is not about the use of the terms "next" and "previous," it is about the > default sort order of a result set.
Fully agree. Let's use what MarkP wrote down over a year ago, and stop debating the nature of adjacency and ordering as it relates time and archives. Are there any technical problems with the elements in this feed: http://diveintomark.org/xml/2004/03/index.atom Works for me. Can anyone tell us about problems this causes for their software? Robert Sayre
