Please disambiguate "original."
On 18/10/2005, at 12:49 PM, James M Snell wrote:
+1 on all of Roberts comments. While I'm ok with the current
version, I was much happier with the original.
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/18/05, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm confused; the current proposal (below) doesn't have that text in
it; for example, the definition of previous is:
OK, then I am confused.
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?
This can be thought of as specific to those
entries; in other words, it represents a fixed section of the feed,
rather than a sliding window over it. Note that the exact nature of
the ordering between the entries and documents containing them is
not defined by this relation; i.e., this relation is only relative.
1.) I don't understand why one feed is making assertions about the
stability of another, when your draft provides explicit signals for
this.
2.) I still don't see how this helps me write a client.
3.) I don't think the notion of "fixed section" is helpful.
<fh:archive> is good, that means "don't subscribe"... I get that.
Robert Sayre
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
