Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream
Andy Armstrong <andy@hexten.net> Tue, 02 March 2010 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@hexten.net>
X-Original-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BD73A8CBE for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1PNLKjT9ens for <tap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eric.hexten.net (static.185.67.40.188.clients.your-server.de [188.40.67.185]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1079328C0DC for <tap@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eric.hexten.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BA8103A141; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:26:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from eric.hexten.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eric.hexten.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e2O2Coxi9eyW; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:26:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.84.68] (host217-45-180-205.in-addr.btopenworld.com [217.45.180.205]) (Authenticated sender: andy) by eric.hexten.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 68D7F103A140; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 21:26:17 +0000 (GMT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Andy Armstrong <andy@hexten.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1003021642090.2167@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:26:15 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3EE5777-B71C-48C8-86D4-C8D5BB72C403@hexten.net>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1003021642090.2167@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
To: Salve J Nilsen <sjn@pvv.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: The TAP Crowd <tap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream
X-BeenThere: tap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Test Anything Protocol WG discussions <tap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tap>
List-Post: <mailto:tap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tap>, <mailto:tap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:26:18 -0000
On 2 Mar 2010, at 15:52, Salve J Nilsen wrote: > So, what do people think? Should the TAP spec use "stream" instead of "document" where "document" is used now? stream++ Maybe there'd be a context in which one would want to refer to a TAP document but stream should be the default I think. -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
- [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Salve J Nilsen
- Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Ovid
- Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Andy Armstrong
- Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Shlomi Fish
- Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Salve J Nilsen
- Re: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream Aristotle Pagaltzis