Re: shared feed lists
Jeff Barr <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.syndication.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
index.html is NOT part of the web's namespace. Some web servers happen to return that file when they receive a "GET" at the root of the server's namespace, that's all. Hardware, software, and data all have different lifetimes. Also, those machines contained your personal files, not items built for worldwide automatic processing. I'd be willing to bet that you still have some of the data which was originally created on those machines. If we do a good job of designing the data then it will survive across changes in hardware and software. That's all we are trying to do here. We can build things to last and they might or might not last, or we can build them quick and dirty and watch as they fall apart under the weight of poor decisions. Jeff; PS - Apple ][ Forever. > Tim Bray is certainly an eloquent person, but he has no clue if we'll be > using the Web in 3000, nor will he ever find out. When I moved in March I > threw out four dumpsters worth of history, there were a bunch of disks > formatted for CP/M in the pile of stuff I threw out. People said things like > that about CP/M too. And the Apple II. Forget it, they're trash now, no one > cares what they called their special files and any time spent arguing over > what they were called was time wasted. And that's something none of us have > very much of, btw. > > These things look precious and we'd like to think they live forever, but > they don't. We can argue about this ad infinitum, and then all we get is an > argument and no new software. Hey if I followed your advice, how would I > know where to look for the <link> element? Doesn't index.html clog up the > namespace? Aren't you blindly looking for something wasteful? Hehe. You end > up chasing your tail Jeff. > > Dave > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Barr" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:02 AM > Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists > > > >>The efficiency is just part of the issue here. The bigger >>one is the fact that picking fixed names for things clogs >>up the web namespace. If web developers keep creating fixed >>names for things, then this is going to evolve in to a >>mess. >> >>The two existing fixed names (favicon.ico and robots.txt) are >>seen as pollutants in an otherwise clean naming space. >> >>Tim Bray put this very well when he stated that we are >>building a web that should still be viable in the year >>3000, and that we should all make decisions with respect >>to that timeframe. So imagine the effect of 1000 years >>of picking fixed names. Each individual choice seems >>fine, but the accumulated weight of those choices isn't >>so fine. >> >>Jeff; >> >> >>>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/ > >> >> >> >> >>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/ > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/