On 18/10/05 7:10 AM, "James Holderness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I wouldn't care at all except for one reason. There exists a
> published "specification" that defines "next" as pointing to the next most
> recent archive, and at least one feed that follows that spec. Whatever is
> decided for the new protocol I would feel obliged to support that old
> protocol as well. If the two disagree that makes the process somewhat more
> complicated.
That article was written for Atom 0.3. We are now Atom 1.0. That particular
feed which happens to follow that so-called spec is also Atom 0.3, which is
of course deprecated.
I've been amusing myself with a thought experiment this morning too. Say I
had a set of feed documents, all arranged from "hottest" to "coldest" using
@rel='hotter' and @rel='colder'. There are no other links in the feed
documents. Say for the sake of argument that the most efficient manner for
an aggregator to traverse that set is to start from the hottest, and proceed
towards the coldest.
Remember, there are only two @rel values in the feed: 'hotter' and 'colder'.
Which links should the aggregator follow:
(a) @rel='hotter'
(b) @rel='colder'
(c) @rel='next'
> Everything else you say, while perfectly reasonable, does not inspire me to
> accept the extra effort involved without at least a mild protest.
All those 0.3 feeds should disappear in due course. That article was
specifically addressing Atom 0.3, and so too should not be relied on.
e.
