RE: Re: My take on shared feed lists
"Chad Everett" <yahoogroups-ipyKpt5L2sG2CP6mJM4Q19i2O/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.syndication.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <350411BE3B7FF4488CA7797C9F1E90A69E0112@exchange.ibmi.informedbeverage.com> |
I think this is where I'm getting lost. In short, I don't understand why non-blog sites are any different from blog sites. While there's definitely a difference between per-site and per-blog (or per-category or whatever), will it really happen that all the feeds would be available only from the root domain, even on a non-blog site? While I can see a non-blog site wanting to provide a list of every single feed available on example.com, wouldn't it also make sense that they would want to provide a subset of that list, say for all sports-related feeds, at example.com/sports? And then all NBA feeds at example.com/sports/nba? Once you get there, there isn't much difference between blog and non-blog sites. The features are so similar, planning only for the top-level supposedly desired by a non-blog site doesn't seem that it would make a bunch of sense. Surely we can implement something that would be usable at any level of the tree in either situation. It would also seem that whether those are feeds within an area (ie, team feeds under NBA), surely something like this could handle different feed formats (rss 1.0/rdf vs rss 2.0 vs atom) or layouts (excerpts only vs. full feeds) of the same content. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: My take on shared feed lists I guess the proposal under discussion is just a different way of presenting that data, or for dealing with it at one level up, on a per-site basis, instead of a per-blog basis. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/