On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:55 PM, James Snell wrote:
Allow me to exaggerate. Had we been using the following names, there would obviously be a point in changing them:In any case, we're talking about something as simple as the name of a single element. I just don't see any real technical value in changing it's name. It doesn't make processing any easier. It doesn't change any of the functional semantics. It doesn't address any critical bugs in the design. It just doesn't do anything.
<guacamole> <chonmage> <blueberry>This is my blog</blueberry> <raspberry>2004-01-25T10:04:00+0000</raspberry> <chonmage> <mountain> <blueberry>Johhny learns to read</blueberry> <raspberry>2004-01-25T10:04:00+0000</raspberry> [...] </mountain> <mountain> <blueberry>I resolve to blog</blueberry> <raspberry>2004-01-24T14:02:00+0000</raspberry> [...] </mountain> </guacamole>
Is "collection" more descriptive than "feed" of what we're using it for? Would it make for quicker absorbtion of the concept by people not already familiar with the term "feed"? Would it confuse those already familiar with the term "feed"?
My only objection to "collection" is that it has two more syllables than "feed".