On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not wedded to "forks", that's just the name that was used in the
> only previous example I've seen. Classic Mac had a "resource fork"
> and a "data fork" within each file.
>
> Don't think I like "maps" though, as (a) that prejudges what the
> alternate forks might be used for, and (b) the name fails to be
> inclusive of the data fork. Other suggestions anyone?
I believe that in the world of NTFS the concept is called "streams":
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/105763.
HTH,
Mark.
--
Mark Cave-Ayland
Sirius Corporation - The Open Source Experts
http://www.siriusit.co.uk
T: +44 870 608 0063