On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:12:04 -0700, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:55 PM, James Snell wrote: > > 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. > > > Allow me to exaggerate. Had we been using the following names, there > would obviously be a point in changing them: >
You wouldn't need to change them if "guacamole" had a well-known, well-understood meaning in relation to what the XML syntax was trying to accomplish. The term "feed" has a well-known, well-understood meaning. > <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"? > I say yes to all of these. > My only objection to "collection" is that it has two more syllables > than "feed". > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
