Re: Proposal: rel="payment"

I may have no problem with supporting it in my aggregator either at
http://www.firstsay.com - as to the commercial aggregators you mention,
that's nice, though your list does not include Bloglines and Newsgator
and I'll believe it when I see it.  It still does not address the
question of will anyone use it (which I clearly doubt).

My concern with it is that it seems the obvious target of abuse
by spammers - so I probably would not support it until I see it
proven out and I really don't think it is a good idea to motivate
spammers to abuse RSS.

I have enough of a challenge filtering out the advertizing people 
are putting in feeds.

By resource link I mean the link to the resource :-) - the RSS
item. If you want to get paid for something that you put in
an enclosure then you need to wrap the feed in a subscription
in my view or add something in the description.

Paid subscription to feeds is something that the aggregators
need to work out - it doesn't belong in RSS IMO.

With respect,
Steven

 



Joshua Kinberg wrote ..
> > I really don't buy this argument.  I've read the proposal. I would not
> > expect any commercial aggregator to support the feature unless there
> > is a way for them to get paid - and I do not see that.
> 
> Wrong. FireANT (the aggregator I am helping develop) will support.
> Web based aggregators like MeFeedia, 49Media, and RSSBazaar are
> already supporting. Yahoo! and FeedBurner have already pledged
> support.
> 
> > The right way to do this in my view is for the resource link to manage
> > any payment/permission requirement or the resource itself to offer
> > an opportunity to donate.
> 
> I don't quite understand what you're saying? What are you terming as
> the "resource link"?
> 
> > I understand what you are trying to do but I would not expect it to
> > prove useful or be widely adopted.  I really doubt that anyone would
> > use the mechanism at the feed navigation level.
> 
> Ummm, look how many bloggers use tip jars. What about fundraising
> campaigns for politics and social causes? How about product reviews
> and affilliate links? Cafe Press shops? All these ways to get paid are
> already widely used. Why not make those relationships explicit in the
> feed and in the HTML?
> 
> -josh
> 
> 
> On 7/31/05, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > I really don't buy this argument.  I've read the proposal. I would not
> > expect any commercial aggregator to support the feature unless there
> > is a way for them to get paid - and I do not see that.
> > 
> > The right way to do this in my view is for the resource link to manage
> > any payment/permission requirement or the resource itself to offer
> > an opportunity to donate.
> > 
> > I understand what you are trying to do but I would not expect it to
> > prove useful or be widely adopted.  I really doubt that anyone would
> > use the mechanism at the feed navigation level.
> > 
> > With respect,
> > 
> > Steven
> > 
> > 
> > Joshua Kinberg wrote ..
> > > rel="payment" does not entail payment as restriction to access.
> > > It simplly defines a location where some form of payment is accepted.
> > > This is completely open ended... it could be an affillliate link as
> > > described previously, a tip jar link, a link to donate to some other
> > > cause such as a "Tsunami Relief Fund," etc...
> > >
> > > By explicitly defining a payment link in this way, aggregators can
> > > display a custom payment button that points to the payment location.
> > >
> > > As with any microformat, this simply makes implicit relationships more
> > > explicit.
> > >
> > > See a more detailed proposal on the format here:
> > > http://videovertigo.org/information/relpayment/
> > >
> > > See the original conception of the format here (with video):
> > > http://www.momentshowing.net/momentshowing/2005/07/video_relpaymen.html
> > >
> > > Here's further explanation from Peter Van Dijk, creator of the
> > > videoblog aggregator MeFeedia, on how MeFeedia supports rel="payment":
> > > http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2005/07/18/2767/
> > >
> > > And here is a more detailed technical spec on the HTML syntax for rel="payment":
> > > http://videovertigo.org/wiki/index.php/RelPayment
> > >
> > >
> > > -Josh
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/31/05, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have to say that I am a little confused by this proposasl and this
> > > > use case.  So let me ask the obvious question:
> > > >
> > > > Why wouldn't the link to the "commodity described" simply take care
> > > > of this?  After-all, one assumes you would have to check for the
> > > > payment/permission to access in anycase.
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason whatsoever, for this property - have I missed
> > > > something?
> > > >
> > > > With respect,
> > > >
> > > > Steven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [email protected] wrote ..
> > > > > Joshua Kinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think of the application of rel="payment" to a
> feed
> > > like
> > > > > > > mine (where the rel="payment" link goes to a purchase page
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > commodity described by the feed entry)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is exactly one of the use cases we had in mind
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, that's good.
> > > > >
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now... a more technical question: It seems that it would be silly
> > > to
> > > > > > limit the use of the rel="payment" element to one per RSS item.
> As
> > > an
> > > > > > example, I might compare several products in a blog entry and
> wish
> > > to
> > > > > > include payment links for all of them. So how should an aggregator
> > > > > > deal with the existence of multiple payment links?
> > > > >
> > > > > It should display them all, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > The real question is whether it's legal to have multiple <atom:link>
> > > > > elements with the same relation, media type and language.  From
> a quick
> > > > > look at the most recent draft, I see nothing forbidding it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ideally, if there were more than one, you'd want to be able to
> give
> > > each
> > > > > rel="payment" link a title attribute, say (or string content to
> be
> > > > > interpreted as a title).  I'm not sure if either of those are legal
> > > for
> > > > > an extension, but I'm no expert here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

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