Peter,
Can you expand upon "being more precise about exactly what is needed"?
On 2006/05/01, at 3:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One thing I did notice -- you're using URLs like this for your
archives:
http://journals.aol.com/panzerjohn/abstractioneer/atom.xml?
page=2&count=10
Are they really permanent? If they're relative to the current state
of the feed (i.e., the above URI means "give me the ten latest
entries"), you can get into some inconsistent states; e.g., if
somebody adds/deletes an entry between when the client fetches the
different archives. Also, if a client doesn't visit for a long time,
it will see
http://journals.aol.com/panzerjohn/abstractioneer/atom.xml?
page=2&count=10
and assume it already has all of the entries in it, because it's
fetched that URI before.
This is the biggest issue I have with the history spec as written. I
have urls like that, which aren't 'archive documents' as defined.
That
means I can't implement the history spec even though I have
conventional
chronologically ordered feeds with link rel="prev/next" elements where
old entries are available.
I believe that by being more precise about exactly what is needed
by the
client to implement feed history usefully you can significantly relax
the requirements. I believe the algorithm can be written so that
clients can use history with a feed like mine.
Regards,
Peter
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
