Eric Scheid wrote:
On 18/10/05 6:14 PM, "Thomas Broyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, and navigating through the historical states of the feed resource is
not paging, it's more like having access to archives.
I was thinking about proposing yet another link relation "archives": in
the general use case, it would reference another feed document where each
entry describes an archive:
The word 'archives' is too general though. May I suggest @rel="history"
instead?
I'm not a native English speaker so…
…but what's wrong with "archives"?
According to my understanding of "archives vs. history", when an
Archived Feed (January 2005 Top 100 feed) links to the Archive Feed (the
one listing each and every Archived Feed), isn't "history" a bit
"disturbing"? as the Archive Feed will contain entries about archives of
feeds published later (February 2005 Top 100 feed, March 2005 Top 100
feed), that is, the Archive Feed doesn't contains the "history" of the
January 2005 Top 100 feed but "archives" of each Top 100 feed ever
published.
As said above, English is not my mother tong, so I don't really mind
which word is chosen, I'll use it (also, someone other than me will
certainly have to go through the IANA registration process, or at least
help me to do it…)
--
Thomas Broyer
