Robert,
As I said before, if the WG can reach consensus, I'm happy with any old term. I hadn't seen Mark's proposal till a few days ago, and a mention in an xml.com does not, in my opinion, a spec-in-stone make. My only pushback on "next" is that to me, it seems counterintuititive -- same as your pushback on "prev." *shrug*
The SixApart people have publicly pointed to FH, so I don't think they're particularly fussed about any particular approach other (not to put words in their mouth). I wasn't able to find a TP feed that uses rel="next"; do you have a link to one?
If the WG registers a set of generic link relations (I still have that concern, but again, if there's consensus in the WG, I'm happy to abide by it), it effectively reduces FH to a users' guide for one use of those extensions, and would probably say something like "walk down and next or prev you see in the subscription feed." The only normative bit would probably be fh:incremental.
Cheers, On 17/10/2005, at 3:21 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the spec is perfectly clear. Is there something about it you don't understand? I do think your addition of an indicator that the feed is an archive is a good idea. I have to disagree with your characterization of deployment. Most AtomAPI implementations work this way--see for example typepad.com.
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
