[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [syndication] shared feed lists

The efficiency is just part of the issue here. The bigger
one is the fact that picking fixed names for things clogs
up the web namespace. If web developers keep creating fixed
names for things, then this is going to evolve in to a
mess.

The two existing fixed names (favicon.ico and robots.txt) are
seen as pollutants in an otherwise clean naming space.

Tim Bray put this very well when he stated that we are
building a web that should still be viable in the year
3000, and that we should all make decisions with respect
to that timeframe. So imagine the effect of 1000 years
of picking fixed names. Each individual choice seems
fine, but the accumulated weight of those choices isn't
so fine.

Jeff;


First let's take out the emotionally charged words, blindly, waste, clog up,
etc.

Do the math. I answered this question in the Q&A. I don't know how to answer
it again without just repeating the answer.

But let's try anyway. ;->

Assume you look for a link to the directory file in the HTML of the home
page of the site.

To find the directory, you:

1. Read the index file.

2. Look for the link element.

3. Read the directory file it points to.

In the approach I'm advocating you:

1. Read the directory file.

Now please explain why is the first approach more efficient.

Dave



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] shared feed lists




Why is using a <head> section <link> tag not sufficient?

Where robots.txt works, in that it's intended as a tool that something
potentially causing TREMENDOUS amount of traffic can use as a guide, is


useful


the same can hardly be said of an index file of this nature.  The


favicon.ico


thing is little more than just another vendor embrace and extend hack.

What's 'better' resource-wise?

Pull the HTML page, and from within that already obtained data detect a


link


tag.  Pull the contents referenced by that link tag.

or

Blindly request a link not knowing if it exists or not, waste the


bandwidth and


clog up server error log?

Couple the latter with the horrendously back practices of too-frequent
scheduling and you've got a real potential for problems.

I, and others, have long thought it's better to make informed requests


instead


of blindly stabbing around looking for data that's not ever going to be


present.


The only question becomes agreeing on what attribute value to use for the


link


tag.

So, with as much respect as you're due, explain why the latter (blind
requesting) is 'better'.

-Bill Kearney


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml




With all due respect, you still haven't provided either a reason not to


do


it this way, or a realistic alternative.

Dave





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