On Oct 18, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/18/05, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-3 to being that generic.
That's a very large negative number. Can you explain how your version
will me write software I otherwise couldn't?
Anything larger than -2 is bogomips--the point I was trying to make
is that I think the idea of using the same link relation for paging
within a feed and for navigating between feeds is absolutely absurd--
completely lacking in foresight--almost looks like an attempt to
create for future problems. People were complaining that trying to
avoid problems with the hypothetical "top 100 DVDs" scenario (not
trying to solve it--just trying to avoid problems if it comes about)
was wandering too far off into hypotheticals, but now people want to
make sure they can use the "next" relation for the arguably even more
hypothetical idea of building a chain of otherwise independent
feeds? This boggles my mind.
Here's what my version will let you do that you won't be able to do
if the definitions of these links allows them to be used for
interfeed navigation--it will enable you to do paging within a feed
that is also part of a chain of feeds (because anyone wanting to
create a chain of feeds will have to come up with a non-conflicting
link relation to do it). It will also enable you to know that
(unless somebody's breaking the spec) you are navigating through a
single feed when you follow next and prev links around--that you are
not jumping from feed to feed. Your software will be able to follow
those links with a much greater degree of confidence that it won't
result in your users complaining "what the hell are you doing showing
me entries from a feed I didn't subscribe to?" It will enable your
application to take more actions automatically without having to ask
for confirmation from the user every time you follow another next or
prev link to avoid such complaints.
