Re: Feed History -04

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

The way I look at this is in terms of a single linked list of feeds.  
The ordering of the entries within those feeds is irrelevant.  The 
individual linked feeds MAY be incremental (e.g. blog entries,etc) or 
may be complete (e.g. lists,etc).  Simply because a feeds are linked, no 
assumption should be made as to whether or not the entries in those 
feeds share any form of ordered relationship.

<link rel="first" /> is the first feed in the linked list
<link rel="next" /> is the next feed in the linked list
<link rel="previous" /> is the previous feed in the linked list
<link rel="last" /> is the last feed in the linked list.

Terms like "top", "bottom", "up", "down", etc are meaningless in this 
model as they imply an ordering of the contents.

For feed history, it would work something like:

<feed>
 ...
 <link rel="self" href="...feed1" />
 <link rel="next" href="...next" />
 <link rel="last" href="...feed3" />
 ...
</feed>

<feed>
 ...
 <link rel="self" href="...feed2" />
 <link rel="previous" href="...feed1" />
 <link rel="next" href="...feed3" />
 <link rel="first" href="...feed1" />
 <link rel="last" href="...feed3" />
 ...
</feed>

<feed>
 ...
 <link rel="self="href="...feed3" />
 <link rel="previous" href="...feed2" />
 <link rel="first" href="...feed1" />
 ...
</feed>

- James

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> At first I really liked this proposal, but I think that the kind of  
> confusion you're concerned about is unavoidable; the terms you refer  
> to suffer "bottom-up" vs. "top-down."
>
> I think that defining the terms well and in relation to the  
> subscription feed will help; after all, the terms don't surface in  
> UIs, so it should be transparent.
>
>
> On 14/10/2005, at 10:37 AM, Antone Roundy wrote:
>
> > Which brings me back to "top", "bottom", "up" and "down".  In the  
> > OpenSearch case, it's clear which end the "top" results are going  to 
> > be found.  In the syndication feed case, the convention is to  put 
> > the most recent entries at the "top".  If you think of a feed  as a 
> > stack, new entries are stacked on "top".  The fact that these  terms 
> > are less generic and flexible than "previous" and "next" is  both an 
> > advantage and a disadvantage.  I think the question is  whether it's 
> > an advantage in a significant majority of cases or  not.  What 
> > orderings would those terms not work well for?
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
>
> BEAWorld 2005: coming to a city near you.  Everything you need for SOA 
> and enterprise infrastructure success.
>
>
> Register now at http://www.bea.com/4beaworld
>
>
> London 11-12 Oct| Paris13-14 Oct| Prague18-19 Oct |Tokyo 25-26 Oct| 
> Beijing 7-8 Dec