James M Snell wrote: > I'm perfectly happy with leaving previous and next free of any semantics > right now and letting the market sort things out. If more specific link > relations prove to be necessary, then so be it, define the more specific > link relations. If the market can get by with generic links + some kind > of extra flag (e.g. incremental=true, etc) then great. if your case (b) > dies off... that's great too. The point is, let's not over specify this > thing right now; leave it open enough for the market to figure out how > to use it.
What are the use cases right now? - Mark's proposed feed state reconstruction - OpenSearch result feeds chunking This is just "paging". What is it also allowing? - publish any non-incremental (i.e. non time-based, like OpenSearch results) feeds chunked in small documents (Top 50 in 5 pages of 10 entries) What is it not covering? - linking between snapshots of non-incremental feeds (last week's Top 50, OpenSearch result of previous query) - linking between different "sites" (i.e. webrings) This has not yet proven to be really needed (e.g. the Top 50 web site I saw didn't provide archives of previous rankings). When there'll be such a need, then we'll define a new link relation (I already proposed "archives"/"history" to link to a "table of contents" feed allowing navigation to e.g. snapshots of non-incremental feeds; another link relation for the "webring" use case if it proves to be needed one day). -- Thomas Broyer
