I agree "self" would do well. But it is true that it's current
definition
is a little vague. I don't suppose one can refine it in a way
consistent with its current definition?
In any case this all looks good to me. As soon as we agree on the
names, I will
implement these links in BlogEd, so that the web server can keep a
complete history of
published changes. What would I need to add to my feed to make it
clear that I my
feed is incremental (I think that's what my feed would be)?
Henry
On 24 Oct 2005, at 10:37, Stefan Eissing wrote:
Am 23.10.2005 um 23:34 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
On 23/10/2005, at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
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.
Well, Tim seemed to have a pretty strong -1 on 'subscribe',
whereas you say you can live with 'current'. So, at this point it
looks like 'current', unless other people come forward. I flirted
with "recent" briefly; anybody strongly like that one?
Maybe it is clear to everyone but me...however i do not see the
damage done by using rel="self" instead of inventing a new
relation. Could someone bother to explain that?
I know the definition in the format spec says it points to an
"equivalent resource", but it also says that "This is the preferred
URI for retrieving Atom Feed Documents representing this Atom
feed." I probably do miss something important here, but
a) "equivalent resource" says either nothing or lets you enter a
mine field while roy t. machine guns you
b) "representing this Atom feed" requires some king of dualistic
thinking: the whole Atom feed is composed of several Atom feed
documents which are linked with "prev" and (maybe) "next"
relations. "self" points to the URI for the overall feed and has
the same value in all chained feed documents (or feed chunks as i
would call them)
Can I convince anyone to enter the land where an Atom feed is
composed of one or more Atom feed documents?
Cheers, Stefan
