Am 18.07.2005 um 18:59 schrieb James M Snell:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 18/07/2005, at 11:10 AM, James M Snell wrote:
Ch 3. fh:stateful seems to be only needed for a newborn stateful
feed. As an alternative one could drop fh:stateful and define
that an empty fh:prev (refering to itself) is the last document
in a stateful feed. That would eliminate the cases of wrong mixes
of fh:stateful and fh:prev.
+1. After going through this, fh:stateful really doesn't seem to be
necessary. the presence of fh:prev would be sufficient to indicate
that the feed has a history and a blank fh:prev would work fine to
indicate the end of the history.
I thought about the comments on the plane yesterday, and I agree.
However, I'm wary of special URI values; also, I want to preserve
stateful=false.
So, what about saying that you can omit fh:stateful *if* fh:prev is
in the feed?
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
I would say that if fh:prev is present, stateful=true is assumed. if
fh:prev is not present, stateful=false is assumed. Omit fh:prev in
the final feed in the chain and you know you've reached the end.
stateful gives a hint to a client about caching entries and maybe their
representation in a user interface. It may be desired to see that a new
feed is stateful(or not) even if it has no history yet. That is why I
came up with the empty prev link as a suggestion.
I agree that "special" URIs are not that great either. Another idea
might be nested elements:
stateful feed:
<fh:history><fh:prev>http://example.org/thingie1.1</fh:prev></fh:
history>
stateful initial feed: <fh:history/>
stateless feed: <fh:history><fh:none/></fh:history>
So much for the syntactic sugar...
//Stefan
