On 17/10/05 5:09 PM, "James Holderness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Which relationship, next or prev, is used to specify a link backwards in > time to an older archive. Mark Nottingham's Feed History proposal used prev. > Mark Pilgrim's XML.com article used next. I'd prefer that our use of 'prev' and 'next' be consistent with other uses elsewhere, where 'next' traverses from the current position to the one that *follows*, whether in time or logical order. Consider the use of 'first/next/prev/last' with chapters or sections rendered in HTML. > 2. Are next and prev both needed in the spec if we only require one of them > to reconstruct the full history? Knowing that the most recently published archive won't likely remain the most recently published archive, there will be use cases where it's better to reconstruct the full history by starting at the one end which is fixed. Not much sense starting at the other end which is constandly shifting. > 3. Are the first/last relationships needed? See (2) above for 'first'. Meanwhile 'last' could be followed by a user to jump ahead to the end of the set of archives to see if the butler did it. Who said 'first/next/prev/last' would only be used by machines? > 4. Is the order of the entries in a feed relevant to this proposal? not to this proposal. > 5. Is the issue of whether a feed is incremental or not (the fh:incremental > element) relevant to this proposal? non-incremental feeds wouldn't be paged, by definition, would they? > 6. What to name the link relation that points to the active feed document? > subscribe, subscription, self, something else? 'subscribe' e.
