Subject: PaceCollection

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:55:35 +1100

http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCollection

== Abstract ==

Rename the top level element name for the atom document format which holds a
collection of entries, to better communicate it's "collection" nature, and
more easily allow non-"feed" collections.

== Status ==

Open

== Related and Conflicting Proposals ==

none

== Rationale ==

The term "feed" has generally held the special meaning of "the collection of
entries which were recently published, and into which new entries will also
be published, with older entries being removed sliding window style" (or
something like that)

Which has meant it has been a pain to refer to Atom Feed Documents which
don't obey that semantic, instead being (say) an archive of all posts within
a specific period of time (eg. June 2004). A given resource (eg. the June
2004 archive) could be said to be both an Atom Feed document, but also
''not'' be a "feed". Confusing.

Atom Feed Documents are properly collections, of which "feeds" are just one
semantic. Other semantics for Atom Collection Documents include "archives",
"directory", "comments", "trackbacks", "pings", "parts", "versions", and so
on.

== Proposal ==

Rename the top level element for Atom Feed Documents to "atom:collection",
and rename Atom Feed Document to Atom Collection Document.

{{{
    no spec text -- this is really just a job for the editor, i hope.

    *    s/atom:feed/atom:collection/
    *    s/Atom Feed Document/Atom Collection Document/
}}}

== Impacts ==

none. it's just a name change.

== Notes ==

----
CategoryProposals

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:12:18 -0800

-1. A name change of the top level element accomplishes nothing. 

-- 
- James Snell
  http://www.snellspace.com
  [email-masked]

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:36:01 +1100

> -1. A name change of the top level element accomplishes nothing.

It eliminates confusion when people talk of "an atom feed". The unpleasant
reality is that Atom will succeed in the real world depending on how well
people understand what it's all about, and eliminating confusion and
opportunities for mis-assumptions is part of that.

Talking about, and thinking about, archives for atom would have been so much
simpler and obvious if the main document was called an Atom Collection
Document. Making collections of trackbacks and comments and pings and
versions and what have you could be done without the mental friction of
referring to them as "feeds". It's the same broad problem we have with three
distinctly different attributes with different restrictions all being named
"type".

e.

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:55:19 -0800

> distinctly different attributes with different restrictions all being named

Yeah, but it's just a name.  It the name was changed, folks would
still have to go back to the spec to figure out what it is a
collection of.  Atom is first and foremost a "feed format" that
"enables syndication".  As such, it just happens to be a "collection",
but that is secondary.  The name feed is descriptive of it's purpose,
which, in my opinion, is far more important.

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.

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:03:53 +0000

> in the design.  It just doesn't do anything.

I don't think asking or looking for "technical value" is that relevant 
here. Names are important [witness the arguments over the name "RSS"]. 
In markup, element naming tends to matter.

In this case replacing atom:feed with atom:collection doesn't help me 
personally understand the format better - I'm 0 on PaceCollection.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:12:04 -0700

> 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:

<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".

---

From: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:49:35 -0800

> 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.

> familiar with the term "feed"?

I say yes to all of these.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:19:58 -0700

> to accomplish. The term "feed" has a well-known, well-understood
...
> I say yes to all of these.
I agree.  The question whether the impact of the first two or the 
impact of the last is greater.  I suspect that many of the people 
already familiar with the term "feed" would very quickly realize that 
"collection" is what used to be called "feed" (which is what used to be 
called "rss" in past lives)--much more quickly than people just getting 
into syndication (which, BTW, I don't think is that great a term, but 
that's another story) would be able to wrap their minds around "feed" 
as opposed to "collection".

That said, I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll quit here.

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:01:58 +1100

> to accomplish. The term "feed" has a well-known, well-understood

Fruit & veg departments in grocery stores are named "fruit & veg". Very few
of them are named "potatoes and bananas", even though "potatoes" and
"bananas" are words with well-known and well-understood meaning.

e.