Andreas Sewe wrote:
So, while the IANA registrations of "next" and "previous" are generic,
the context they are used in attaches additional, incompatible semantics
to them. And that's what I, as a casual observer of the Atom effort,
find so frustrating: I don't care which I-D gets changed, but I do care
about consistency.
So please read PaceReverseLinks in this spirit, since I have no strong
preference for either directionality, just for consistency. And if
consistency with OpenSearch could be achieved as well that would be great.
I agree with everything you're saying here. However I think it would have
been somewhat easier to change the current Feed History draft to be
consistent with the past implementations of "feed history" [1], the older
APP specs [2], the current APP spec [3] and the OpenSearch spec [4] (all of
which are compatible with each other) rather than trying to change all of
the above to match the Feed History draft which is compatible with nothing.
But I don't think there's any chance Mark is going to go for that. And I
doubt OpenSearch is going to change their paging direction either (although
I could be wrong). APP could go either way. Whatever happens there's going
to be inconsistency somewhere. After weeks after arguing when Feed History
was being discussed I figured it was was just easier to live with the
inconsistency as long as it was documented somewhere. But now it looks like
that isn't going happen either. Maybe we can just pretend there isn't any
inconsistency and hope nobody notices.
Regards
James
[1] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/06/16/dive.html
[2] http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-02.txt
[3] http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-08.txt
[4] http://opensearch.a9.com/spec/1.1/response/
