Re: [syndication] envelopes vs. payloads, calsch,

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Phil Wolff <pwolff@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Do you think there is room in the next syndication release to further
> separate envelope from payload?

I think this is a must for whatever we do next. This ties in very well with
the modularization stuff -- if we come up with an envelope system, it will
be extremely helpful in moving syndication forward.

> Can the spec allow just about anything to be syndicated, beyond news
> items? 

We should allow anything to be syndicated. Once we agree on a syndication
envelope, to syndicate new types of data would just require an XML->HTML
converter for each new type. This would make it really easy to syndicate
anything.

> I agree about syndicating events; they are a natural. About the
> Calendaring and Scheduling standard, (1), I'm not sure if the ietf
> calsch working group ever finished, but it appears so.

Looking at the mailing list, it looks like there's still active discussion
going on. They just posted an Action Item listing yesterday:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg05128.html

> (b) include payload DTD's by reference?
> 
> A great deal of the value this group brings is in the envelope. Why
> not permit inclusion by reference of payload structure? Assures
> notice of payload structure changes. Let's you choose to support this
> particular channel, or not. And support the myriad of content types.

I'm sorry, I don't think I follow. Are you saying that you can choose what
kind of payload DTD goes in the envelope by referencing it? How else would
this be done?

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan