fantasai wrote: > > Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:43:38 +0200, Eric Scheid >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> instead of "feed", consider "updates", which gets closer to the gist >>> of the sense >> >> >> No. To me 'Updates' signifies that something is 'updated'. Even >> posting new content falls outside of that definition. > > > That would signify "updates" to my document. If I'm linking to the > CNN news feed, or my-favorite-blog, that wouldn't be appropriate. > For this purpose, the syntax needs to signify that this is a feed, > that it needs to be handled as such.. and that there is no other > significant relationship between the document and the feed it links > to (unless otherwise specified). > > ~fantasai > These are both valid interpretations of "updates." From Princeton's WordNet: update - n - news that updates your information - v - 1: modernize or bring up to date; "We updated the kitchen in the old house" 2: bring up to date; supply with recent information 3: bring to the latest state of technology
As this definition suggests, most people think of "updates" as modifications of items that already exists first and completely new items second. In the land of feeds, the frequency is reversed (most "updates" in feeds are new items, not modifications to existing ones). -Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma
