Mark,
Right now, the subscription feed uses "previous" to point to the archive
feeds. Perhaps a better approach would be to to have an "archive" link
relation that points to the first of a distinct set of archive feeds.
Also, remove the temporal semantics from the the previous link and
require that each archive page contain the entries from a fixed period
of time (that is, each archive feed document is "complete" within a
given time period)
<!-- Subscription feed -->
<feed>
...
<link rel="self" href="/feed.xml" />
<link rel="archive" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
</feed>
<!-- /2006/04/feed.xml -->
<feed>
...
<link rel="self" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
<link rel="current" href="/feed.xml" />
<link rel="next" href="/2006/03/feed.xml" />
<link rel="first" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
<link rel="last" href="/2006/01/feed.xml" />
</feed>
<!-- /2006/03/feed.xml -->
<feed>
...
<link rel="self" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
<link rel="current" href="/feed.xml" />
<link rel="previous" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
<link rel="next" href="/2006/02/feed.xml" />
<link rel="first" href="/2006/04/feed.xml" />
<link rel="last" href="/2006/01/feed.xml" />
</feed>
This completely removes the current subscription feed from the history
reconstruction and eliminates the sliding window effect.
Reconstructing the feed history becomes a simple matter of locating the
archive link and iterating over a set of fixed pages.
- James
Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> Did you find that algorithm wrong, too hard to understand/implement, or
> did you just do a different take on it? Does the approach that you took
> end up having the same result?
>
> Any suggestions on how to better document it appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 2006/04/26, at 8:35 PM, James Holderness wrote:
>
>>
>> We added support for next/prev/previous links in version 0.3.0 of
>> Snarfer [1]. We don't use the reconstruction algorithm suggested in
>> the Feed History draft, but your example feed seems to work ok for an
>> initial retrieval. There may be problems with subsequent updates,
>> though, depending on how you handle items falling out the bottom of
>> the main feed.
>>
>> Regards
>> James
>>
>> [1] http://www.snarfware.com/
>>
>> John Panzer wrote:
>>> We just deployed support for [EMAIL PROTECTED]"previous" et al. for
>>> AOL Journals. If anyone has a client that makes use of these
>>> links, please let me know, I'd love to see if there are any
>>> interoperability problems.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
