@trwnh @silverpill @erincandescent @julian

It's bad for caching to do forward chron, which is why we don't do it anywhere else.

Also, it does not help you build a tree structure; older nodes are not necessarily at the top of the tree.

@trwnh @evan @evan @julian @silverpill and to be clear my ambivalence about whether there should be a thread object comes primarily because I don't think this is a point on which we will ever get universal agreement

It's an area where I feel the only real route is the "why not both?" compromise that doesn't really make anyone happy

@erincandescent @julian @evan@community.nodebb.org @trwnh @silverpill Standards are about making arbitrary decisions in the pursuit of uniformity.

@evan @silverpill @erincandescent @julian why is it bad for caching? it seems like the opposite to me -- reverse-chron means that pages are constantly updating and are almost never consistent! each new item in the collection pushes everything else behind it, and the last item of the page overflows into becoming the first item of the next page. if you did forward-chron, you could freeze "page 1" as soon as it got full, and move onto "page 2".

also, a viewer can easily tell where they left off.

@trwnh @silverpill @erincandescent @julian oh, yes, that's true, if you do "volatile paging" (last 20 pages).

If you have reified pages (item goes in one page and stays there), once the pages are full, they don't change (except for `Remove` activities).

Don't do volatile paging.

If you use reified pages, an add to a reverse-chron collection will typically have changes to `first` and the Collection itself.

@trwnh @silverpill @erincandescent @julian

If you have bidirectional links (`first` and `last`) you can have stable collections with rev-chron or forward-chron. So, fair point.

@evan @silverpill @erincandescent @julian relevant thread: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/stricter-specifications-for-pagination-of-collections-and-orderedcollections/2633

@evan @silverpill @erincandescent @julian Yeah, my point is that it seems almost entirely conventional whether to have "reverse" mean first.next.next... or last.prev.prev... -- and I favor the latter approach because it makes more sense imo, no double-inversion ("reverse-reverse chron", anyone?)

@trwnh @silverpill @erincandescent @julian Except for most interfaces, your first page is the current stuff, and you go back in time to find earlier stuff.

@evan @silverpill @erincandescent @julian This is what I meant by "conventional". On a forum thread, you generally read forward. On social media like Twitter, there is a heavy bias toward going reverse. And some interfaces even let you choose ascending or descending order.