"next"
"next-chunk"
"next-page"
"next-archive"
"next-entries"
are all workable for me.
I think the real question is still (unfortunately) how specific it
should be.
I think there are merits to both sides; the relative cost of a
specific term isn't much, and the harm of a general term is largely
theoretical at this point. So, I'm at a point where I'm more
interested in moving forward than in a particular solution.
Perhaps people could +1/-1 the following options:
* Reconstructing a feed should use:
a) a specific relation, e.g., "prev-archive"
b) a generic relation, e.g., "previous"
(these are just examples; once we figure out how specific it should
be, we can figure out a term more easily)
I'm +1 on both.
On 18/10/2005, at 11:44 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Oct 18, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
rel: next
definition: A URI that points to the next feed in a series of feeds.
For example, in a reverse-choronological series of feeds, the 'next'
URI would point deeper into the past.
Ohh, nice readability. Perhaps a few refinements:
A URI that points to the next in a series of Feed documents, each
representing a segment of the same feed. For example, in a reverse-
chronologically ordered series of Feed documents, the 'next' URI
would point to the document next further in the past.
+1, *this* is "paging".
We could add another example, e.g. sorted by relevance (within a
search
result) or priority…
If you want to link between different "states" of "Top 100" feeds
(October, September, August, etc), then use something like
@rel="archives"
or @rel="history", or define a @rel="previous-archive" if you
really want
to navigate directly to the other feed without having to go through a
"table of contents" feed.
If some people here prefers "next-chunk" or "next-page" to just
"next",
why not, my mind is open…
--
Thomas Broyer
--
Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO BEA Systems
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
