Re: RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml

> inventing names and persuading the world to use them isn't going to
> scale,

Not to mention being needlessly anglo-centric with the naming conventions.

>  I fear this'll get us into a situation where I no longer get to choose how to
manage my
> own Web namespaces. Eg. I might decide to map /sitemap to a page about
> sitemaps, only to discover that in 2005 the sitemapping community
> declare this to be the 'discovery page' for XML sitemap formats. Ditto
> /mp3 or whatever.

Good point, why harm future choice by imposing this sort of restriction now?

> robots.txt was the wrong way to do it. If folk _really_ want to go this
> route I'd suggest using the bit of the namespace already grabbed by
> robots.txt, ie. robots.feeds.txt etc., to keep things in the same
> "area". But it's still pretty gross.

Heh, robots.xml and then setup structures within it.  Gadzooks, reinventing RSD
and RDF inside robots.txt.

> But we defer decisions about where/how to put this data to the sites
> hosting, rather than impose a decision from above. We don't need a
> single location, just some conventions for discoverying those locations.

Indeed, setting the good example and not forcing restrictions is the only sane
way to approach it.  I know it's just soooo tempting to whack together a fixed
URL but the downsides really make it seem like a bad idea.

-Bill Kearney


 

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