Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
Mark Nottingham wrote: "Incremental" works pretty well there (although it has a lot of syllables); "sliding" (as suggested by James) also fits, but it is a bit evocative of time, which I'd like to avoid (despite the use of 'history' in the document title :-/). And "incremental" isn't evocative of time ;-) ;-) Either way, It definitely works better than "stateful". - James
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
On 25/08/2005, at 10:10 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: 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.) That's one thing to be named. I was trying to come up with a term for the whole, conceptual feed (that indicates its components have this nature); that's why I came up with "incremental." I.e., in usage: "That's a foo feed; you can walk back its previous elements and build the whole feed." And, "That's not a foo feed; the document you fetch is the whole feed." "Incremental" works pretty well there (although it has a lot of syllables); "sliding" (as suggested by James) also fits, but it is a bit evocative of time, which I'd like to avoid (despite the use of 'history' in the document title :-/). (BTW, "incremental" isn't my term; it was suggested privately by an implementor) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
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.
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
Just brainstorming... (hey, I already threw out one harebrained idea this week, what's one more?) Perhaps something as simple as a single empty element (like fh:archive) that describes the general behavior of the feed. e.g. or - James Ian Davis wrote: On 24/08/2005 23:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: 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. Worth it? What about "partial"? Ian
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
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). 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 totally see an ordering extension being useful, but I think it's orthogonal to fh. 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? Hopefully. I think one of the reasons people publish such big feeds right now is that they want to make sure people will see entries if they haven't checked in a while. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
On Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 04:07 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
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.
Worth it?
I think it's worth seeing if a term can be found that has a more
intuitively understandable meaning. It might be helpful to explore the
kinds of names that describe non-stateful feeds too--if a better term
can be found for that, it could be used instead (and just reverse true
& false). Brainstorming a little:
Stateful: sliding window, most recent segment, segment, stream, entry
stream, appendable, appending, augmentable, augmenting
Non-stateful: uh...stateful? ("what you just downloaded represents the
current state of the entire feed"), current state, current, snapshot,
fixed entry, set entry, replacable, replacing, entry replacing,
non-appending, non-augmenting
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
On 24/08/2005 23:07, Mark Nottingham wrote: 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. Worth it? What about "partial"? Ian
Re: Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
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
Feed History: stateful -> incremental?
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. Worth it? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
