Am 25.08.2005 um 00:07 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
Just bouncing an idea around; it seems that there's a fair amount of confusion / fuzziness caused by the term 'stateful'. Would people prefer the term 'incremental'? I.e., instead of a "stateful feed", it would be an "incremental feed"; fh:stateful would become fh:incremental.
I would prefer to name such a feed a "chunked" feed. So, that would make it fh:chunked=(true|false).
That leaves the "history" analogy a bit behind, I'm afraid. So a "chunked feed" would be a history if "fh:order=publish-time"? Maybe not worth it, just a thought.
I see one use of feed histories in making normal feed documents very small and still being able to offer a rather long list of entries. Clients checking for updates would just get a tiny document (2 entries maybe) iff they do not use HTTP caching or ETag validation. Could this be some transfer-volume saver?
//Stefan
