Re: RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml

Dave Winer wrote:
> You say it "isn't a good idea" and don't explain why.

I didn't think I need to as Tim's comments seemed clear
and didn't require any elaboration.

> TBL says it isn't a good idea because the owner of the site owns the
> namespace, which makes sense, but robots.txt et al already offer features
> based on common file names.

One of the problems is that the agent is 
in effect 'shooting blind' when it goes to get a robots.txt
or a favicon.ico. And each and every server will
get hits for these files even if they don't
support them. My site alone gets over a 100
hits a day for 'robots.txt' and even more 
hits for favicon.ico.

> TBL is bucking a long-term trend here. Operating systems have always had
> known locations for special configuration files.

And locations for special configuration files are exactly
what he is talking about here and from my reading he is
not eschewing the need, only the implementation. That is,
he seems to accept the need for such information, just that
there is a problem with hard-coding the URIs, and that a more
general and extensible mechanism is needed for how to locate
all the 'special configuration files'.

> Joe, it's a hopeless argument. There have to be some config files. Have to
> be. Not an option. Try to get rid of them is like trying to boil the ocean.

Again, no one is arguing for their removal, just a more extensible 
generic mechanism than "Stuff this file in the root of your URI space."

	Thanks,
	-joe

-- 
http://BitWorking.org
http://WellFormedWeb.org


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/