Robert Sayre wrote:
[about the "previous" link relation]
A stable URI that, when dereferenced, returns a feed document
containing a set of entries that sequentially precede those in the
current document.
I already have code that uses "next" for this. Why do we want to change it?
Er, I'm not a native English speaker, so my apologies in advance if I'm
wrong…
If a feed is sorted by the entries' atom:updated value in descending
order (which AtomPP currently requires for "Lists"), isn't "next"
meaning "entries with an atom:updated representing an earlier date-time"
(remember, entries are sorted in descending order!) and "previous"
meaning "entries with an atom:updated representing a later date-time"?
If entries are sorted in descending order, the "first" feed is the one
with the greatest values (atom:updated representing now, a second ago, a
minute ago, …) and the "last" one the one with the lowest values
(atom:updated representing the "oldest" date-times). Hence, in the
"first" feed you'll find an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"next"] and in the "last" one
an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"previous"].
Conclusion: I think you, Mark and the guys behind OpenSearch all agree…
Now I think we should ask the OpenSearch people if they already have
requested IANA registration for their start/next/prev/end link relations
(hasn't James already asked them?) and if they haven't, then we (the WG)
should first agree on the terms to be used (start/end vs. first/last),
request registration and tell the OpenSearch people that these relations
are pending registration.
Any thoughts?
--
Thomas Broyer
