Eric Scheid wrote: > On 19/10/05 10:58 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>I already have code that uses "next" for this. Why do we want to change it? >>> >>>Why did you choose "next"? >> >>Because that is what's already been deployed and what my software uses. > > > -1. > > Someone else made a poor choice*, you copied that, it's confusing, why > enshrine it into official specs? Why not take this opportunity to make a > better choice? > > I looked at Pilgrim's atom feed document for March 2004 ... it said the next > document was February 2004 and the previous document was April 2004. Try > explaining to anyone that isn't writing an aggregator why that makes sense.
"No matter which direction you head in, no matter which way the chain is sorted, the next document is always "next", so that's not a useful distinction IMHO. " You said that to me about next and previous for app:collection when I reuested the value 'next' be changed to 'previous' to be consistent with the notion of elements existing earlier in time. What's different here? cheers Bill
