RE: Compromise time....

"Danny Ayers" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.network.syndication.discuss
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> Okay, after looking over the past few days worth of discussion, it's
> clear that there are a few points of contention.  And I don't see a
> way of convincing either side to change their position.  I'd like to
> enumerate the big ones and propose a compromise:
>
>   1. Having a well-known fall-back URL, such as http://blah.com/feeds.xml
>
>   2. Using OPML to represent the feed list.
>
> I now agree that #1 is not worth it.  HOWEVER, I would like to pursue
> the possible use of robots.txt as suggested by Chad.  Does anyone here
> know any robots.txt "experts"--people who were involved with the
> discussions back then?  We should try to get an authoritative answer
> on whether it is (1) possible to do what we want there, and (2) not
> completely unreasonable to do it.  If the robots.txt option doesn't
> work out, then it doesn't work out.  We tried.
>
> Does anyone disagree with that?

It's hard to see what harm it could do if only considered a fallback. Having
to add a parser to deal with it should act as a bit of damping to stop
people getting carried away (folks already parsing robots.txt should be damp
enough already ;-)

Re. experts - Tim Bray and Norm Walsh have both been involved with
syndication technologies, and are on the W3C's Technical Architecture Group,
may be worth a ping.

I think it should be possible to support multiple formats, though there
ought to be a preferred format (I agree about OPML being a poor choice).
Something like OCS would suite me best, but as people are actively working
on alternatives, I couldn't go further.

> Using the list of required data that's there now, I hope to put a
> simple example file (as a proposal) on the Wiki later tonight if I
> have the time.  Might others do the same?  And maybe ping the list
> when there's a new one to see?
>
> I suspect that putting a simple example file together will help me
> better understand what we're creating.  I wonder if the same might not
> be true for others?

Sounds a good plan.

Cheers,
Danny.


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.