Re: shared feed lists

You'd lose that bet Jeff.

Look, you're arguing -- and I don't want to argue with you.

We have a problem that needs solving. You've made your point adequately.

Now perhaps you would you like to write a spec that suits your needs, and
maybe other people would implement it.

And actually I have a lot of experience designing things that last a long
time and work really well.

Mazel tov.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Barr" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists


> 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/
>
>


 

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