[tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream

Salve J Nilsen <sjn@pvv.org> Tue, 02 March 2010 15:52 UTC

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:52:34 +0100
From: Salve J Nilsen <sjn@pvv.org>
To: The TAP Crowd <tap@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.1003021642090.2167@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [tap] Bikeshed: TAP document vs. TAP stream
Precedence: list

Hey folks

Just did a quick "Google ranking" of the use of "document" vs. 
"stream":

   http://www.google.com/search?q=Perl+%22TAP+document%22
   http://www.google.com/search?q=Perl+%22TAP+stream%22

"Document" gives 110-ish hits and "stream" about 370 hits. Should we 
try to standardize on "stream" in the TAP spec?

I'm just raising this issue because I think "TAP document" sounds a 
litte weird to say after having looked at the output of "make test" 
enough times. It always seemed to me like a stream of data than a 
fixed document. "Stream" is also closer to the "protocol" paradigm 
than "document", IMO.

Sorry about the bikeshedding, but clarity and consistency is also 
nice to have. :)

So, what do people think? Should the TAP spec use "stream" instead of 
"document" where "document" is used now?

stream++


- Salve

-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl
sub AUTOLOAD{$AUTOLOAD=~/.*::(\d+)/;seek(DATA,$1,0);print#  Salve Joshua Nilsen
getc DATA}$"="'};&{'";@_=unpack("C*",unpack("u*",':4@,$'.#     <sjn@foo.no>
'2!--"5-(50P%$PL,!0X354UC-PP%/0\`'."\n"));eval "&{'@_'}";   __END__ is near! :)

[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