Hi Peter,
On 23/10/2005, at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
I prefer 'subscribe' because it better describes the meaning and
intention behind the link, but I can live with 'current' if that is
the
consensus.
Well, Tim seemed to have a pretty strong -1 on 'subscribe', whereas
you say you can live with 'current'. So, at this point it looks like
'current', unless other people come forward. I flirted with "recent"
briefly; anybody strongly like that one?
I am also worried that this is being pushed through too
quickly.
I appreciate that, but it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem; we
won't get all of the implementation experience until it's defined and
widely deployed. Most of the problems that people have postulated
with these extensions have to do with conflicts with future
extensions, which by their nature are hard to accommodate. Or, they
are matters of style or just judgement calls; we'll never make
everybody happy on those issues, and waiting won't help.
OpenSearch uses 'next' to go from page=1 to page=2. The natural
paging
setup for an inremental feed that is also an OpenSearch results
feed is
to have rel=current (aka rel=subscribe) point to the first page of
results (i.e. page=1).
Is it the intention that history reconstruction uses 'next' links
to go
back into the past?
If so I think that must be made much more explicit in the
descriptions,
since it is not the natural interpretation if you come at this purely
from the standpoint of blog history.
On the other hand, if that is *not* the intention then paging for
history and paging for OpenSearch will be incompatible.
Right now, the plan forward seems to be that 'next' et al will be
purposefully generic; i.e., they won't mean much until used in
conjunction with another extension (in my case, fh:incremental).
My plan for feed history is to recommend people walk both 'previous'
and 'next' from the subscription feed, so that it doesn't matter
which "way" the feed goes.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
