Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've replaced "subscribe" with "current"; otherwise, these are the > same as in the last round. I think they're ready to go -- any more > comments?
I prefer 'subscribe' because it better describes the meaning and intention behind the link, but I can live with 'current' if that is the consensus. I am also worried that this is being pushed through too quickly. > - Attribute Value: previous > - Description: A URI that refers to the immediately preceding > document in a series of documents. > - Attribute Value: next > - Attribute Value: first > - Attribute Value: last > - Description: [consequent descriptions] OpenSearch uses 'next' to go from page=1 to page=2. The natural paging setup for an inremental feed that is also an OpenSearch results feed is to have rel=current (aka rel=subscribe) point to the first page of results (i.e. page=1). Is it the intention that history reconstruction uses 'next' links to go back into the past? If so I think that must be made much more explicit in the descriptions, since it is not the natural interpretation if you come at this purely from the standpoint of blog history. On the other hand, if that is *not* the intention then paging for history and paging for OpenSearch will be incompatible. Regards, Peter -- Peter Robinson <http://www.ticketswitch.com/> Concerts, sport and theatre tickets
