* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-14 05:10]: > On Oct 13, 2005, at 7:58 PM, Eric Scheid wrote: > >Do we need to define what 'first' means though? I recall a > >dissenting opinion on the wiki that the 'first' entry could be > >at either end of the list, which could surprise some. > > Yeah, that's a good question. Maybe calling them "top" and > "bottom" would work better. Considering that the convention > is to put the newest entry at the top of a feed document, > "top" might be more intuitively understandable as being the > new end. You might also rename "next" and "previous" (or is > it "previous" and "next"?) to "down" and "up". There's SOME > chance of that getting confused with hierarchical levels, but > I could live with that.
'inaugural' and 'latest'? :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
