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/