Re: Feed History -04

[Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/17/05, Byrne Reese <byrne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "next" and "previous" are as James points out, orthogonal to ordering.
> The debate as to whether the next set goes backwards or forwards in time
> is not about the use of the terms "next" and "previous," it is about the
> default sort order of a result set.

Fully agree. Let's use what MarkP wrote down over a year ago, and stop
debating the nature of adjacency and ordering as it relates time and
archives. Are there any technical problems with the elements in this
feed:

http://diveintomark.org/xml/2004/03/index.atom

Works for me. Can anyone tell us about problems this causes for their software?

Robert Sayre