[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml
> I think it's important to use a well-known location as a fall-back
> mechanism. If a site provides a reference to the XML file in a <link>
> tag, then aggregators/spiders/bot should use it. Only if there's no
> hint of a feed directory should they consider issuing a separate
> request.
What's the use case for this? Spiders or individual aggregators?
> The need for a well-known location is clear in my mind. There are a
> lot of organizations and content management systems that do not make
> it easy to add arbitrary content to <head> section of their documents.
Which ones?
> And many will not want to regenerate megabytes of HTML that's already
> sitting around. They may not even have an easy way to do so. We
> should not raise the bar to entry too high.
Is yahoo one such example? I'd argue that the root page of a website, the
likely place to have such a link, is something that's already being regenerated
on a very frequent basis. Likewise, putting data into proper places is hardly
any sort of unrealistic burden. The process here would be a fallback of 'if the
page you're examining doesn't have the <link> then look at the root page for the
site and use that one'. The trouble here is you end up making a statement about
things that might not be accurate. As in a user's own weblog page doesn't have
the link element. The base hosting provider's page has links to completely
unrelated material (and might not even /list/ the user's data). The semantics
of falling back are more problematic than it might first appear.
> To summarize, the reasonable compromise seems to be:
>
> 1. Examine the page for a <link> tag that points to the mythical
> "feeds.xml" file and use it if it's there
>
> 2. In the absence of any <link> tag, look in the well-known
> fall-back location.
>
> If this sounds familiar, it's how many aggregators perform
> auto-discovery today.
No, existing readers depend the link tag for this.
The only trouble with your scenario is as it's likely to be implemented there
won't be an effective range of examples following the suggested behavior offered
in your example 1. It'll just end up being another horrible waste like
favicon.ico.
> The impression I have is that the anti-namespace-pollution folks (such
> as Tim) were willing to agree that a fall-back location was a
> reasonable compromise. But that may be wishful remembering on my part
> too.
Well, what's setting the example here? If a site like Yahoo wants to do
something like this isn't it worthwhile to have them make a good example? It's
not like it'd be any sort of penalty for them to do this properly.
-Bill Kearney