Robert Sayre wrote:
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
;-) Woo hoo! Robert and I agree on something ;-)
Debating how the entries are organized is fruitless. The Atom spec
already states that the order of elements in the feed has no
significance; trying to get an extension to retrofit order-significance
into the feed is going to fail... just as I discovered with my Feed
Index extension proposal.
* Next/Prev/Start/Subscribe defines a linked list of feed documents
and/or entry documents and says absolutely nothing about the ordering of
the entries.
* Next/Prev/Start/Subscribe should be defined in their own specification
that is not bound to Feed History
* Feed History (if MarkN wishes it so) should normatively reference the
Next/Prev/Start/Subscribe extension spec
I do believe that a "last" link relation would be helpful for
completeness and I do believe the use cases are there (e.g. search
results, etc) but I am ok with dropping that for now as it can easily be
defined later once the use cases do become more prominent.
Over the next week I'll see if I can draft up the spec. I'll use what
MarkP put together as the basis for what I write up and submit.
- James
