Re: Collection paging section usefulness

Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
> I was wondering (and please if it has been already discussed let me know)
> but should not it be more relevant to create an extension to RFC 4287 to
> specify feed paging and then refer to it from the APP specification? I've
> always thought the collection paging was not fitting well the draft per
> se.

Sylvain, I wholeheartedly agree with your observation.

In particular, the "extension to RFC 4287" that does what you want is 
already being created, by Mark Nottingham: 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-06.txt>.

Currently, with both APP and Feed History around, we have two 
definitions of the "next"/"previous" link relations floating around in 
drafts which will eventually become RFCs. This is bound to cause problems.

So why do we not refer Collection Paging to the Feed History extension 
which already defines both Paged Feeds and Archive Feeds along with all 
the necessary terminology? Am am definitely +1 on this approach.

Obviously, such an approach needs to be coordinated with Mark, so I have 
Cc'ed this mail to him. Maybe we can come up with a Pace eventually.

Regards,

Andreas Sewe