Andreas Sewe wrote:
Too bad the values used are inconsistent with XHTML rel values, though,
but then again I probably suffer from syntactic hypersensitivity. ;-)
The value was "prev" initially, but some people expressed a preference for
"previous" and I figured it wasn't worth another month o
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
There's one minor problem with the suggestion above: the IESG just approved
the registration requests for "previous", "first", and "last" that were
supposedly discussed and agreed-to within the working group. That decision
can be revisited, but if you all decide to make
On Jan 25, 2006, at 11:56 AM, James M Snell wrote:
APP should use the values as registered. That is, previous, next,
first, last and current. No need to modify the registrations.
+1
Protocol
Cc: Atom Syntax
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Approval of Atom LinkRelations Attribute
Value Registrations]
Regarding the following four link relations there seem to be some
inconsistencies with (or maybe only within) the APP 0.7 draft (but
hopefully the editors of 0.8 have caught those already
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Sewe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:37 AM
> To: Atom Publishing Protocol
> Cc: Atom Syntax
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Approval of Atom LinkRelations Attribute
> Value Registrations]
>
>
>
Regarding the following four link relations there seem to be some
inconsistencies with (or maybe only within) the APP 0.7 draft (but
hopefully the editors of 0.8 have caught those already ;-):
Attribute Value: previous
Attribute Value: next
Attribute Value: first
Attribute Value: last
In s
