Am 25.08.2005 um 18:12 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
On 25/08/2005, at 3:00 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
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).
Hmm. I tend to shy away from 'chunked', because that already has
meaning in HTTP, and while the format isn't dependant upon HTTP, it
might get confusing (witness "bindings" and "properties" in the Web
services world).
Seeing it as a data structure "fh" introduces a single-linked list of
documents which the whole feed is composed of. I think such a document
needs its own term.
A single document could be named a "feed fragement". The first document
"head fragment"? Not very snappy. Let's see. If the whole feed is atom,
then the fragments are "particals"? "feedytrons"? Are we perhaps
talking about a "split feed" (fh:split=true/false? the german term for
a fragment is "splitter", btw.)
It has been a long day, i should stop now.
