I think that in section 5. you should specify that the URI reference
MUST NOT be relative or
MUST BE absolute (if that is the proper W3C Architecture term). I
agree with the point made by
David Powell in the thread entitled "More about extensions" [1].
Given that we have this problem I was wondering whether it would not
be better
to use the link element as I think it permits relative references.
Relative references
really are *extreemly useful*. I tried to work without them in my
BlogEd editor
because the Sesame database folk mistakenly thought it was not part
of RDF, and it caused
me no end of trouble: all those problems vanished as soon as they
allowed relative references.
So if relative references are allowed in links perhaps the following
would be better:
<link type="http://purl.org/syndication/history/1.0/next"; href="./
archives/archive1.atom">
Henry Story
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16643.html
On 15 Aug 2005, at 22:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Draft -03 of feed history is now available, at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-03.txt
Significant changes in this revision include:
- add fh:archive element, to indicate that an entry is an archive
- allow subscription feed to omit fh:stateful if fh:prev is present
- clarified that fh doesn't add ordering semantics, just allows
you to reconstruct state
- cleaned up text, fixed examples, general standards hygiene
There's going to be at least one more draft, as I neglected to
acknowledge people who have made suggestions and otherwise helped
so far. Sorry!
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
