Re: shared feed lists

"Dave Winer" <dave-rH/ioLL7x7RWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:49:30 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.network.syndication.discuss
Organization	Berkman Center, Harvard Law School
Message-ID	<187d01c39259$fe8ec560$6401a8c0@murphy3>
First let's take out the emotionally charged words, blindly, waste, clog up,
etc.

Do the math. I answered this question in the Q&A. I don't know how to answer
it again without just repeating the answer.

But let's try anyway. ;->

Assume you look for a link to the directory file in the HTML of the home
page of the site.

To find the directory, you:

1. Read the index file.

2. Look for the link element.

3. Read the directory file it points to.

In the approach I'm advocating you:

1. Read the directory file.

Now please explain why is the first approach more efficient.

Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kearney" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists


>
> Why is using a <head> section <link> tag not sufficient?
>
> Where robots.txt works, in that it's intended as a tool that something
> potentially causing TREMENDOUS amount of traffic can use as a guide, is
useful
> the same can hardly be said of an index file of this nature.  The
favicon.ico
> thing is little more than just another vendor embrace and extend hack.
>
> What's 'better' resource-wise?
>
> Pull the HTML page, and from within that already obtained data detect a
link
> tag.  Pull the contents referenced by that link tag.
>
> or
>
> Blindly request a link not knowing if it exists or not, waste the
bandwidth and
> clog up server error log?
>
> Couple the latter with the horrendously back practices of too-frequent
> scheduling and you've got a real potential for problems.
>
> I, and others, have long thought it's better to make informed requests
instead
> of blindly stabbing around looking for data that's not ever going to be
present.
> The only question becomes agreeing on what attribute value to use for the
link
> tag.
>
> So, with as much respect as you're due, explain why the latter (blind
> requesting) is 'better'.
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Winer" <dave-rH/ioLL7x7RWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml
>
>
> > With all due respect, you still haven't provided either a reason not to
do
> > it this way, or a realistic alternative.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 

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