Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml

["Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>]

You are one sick dude Bill.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [syndication] RFC: myPublicFeeds.opml


> > inventing names and persuading the world to use them isn't going to
> > scale,
>
> Not to mention being needlessly anglo-centric with the naming conventions.
>
> >  I fear this'll get us into a situation where I no longer get to choose
how to
> manage my
> > own Web namespaces. Eg. I might decide to map /sitemap to a page about
> > sitemaps, only to discover that in 2005 the sitemapping community
> > declare this to be the 'discovery page' for XML sitemap formats. Ditto
> > /mp3 or whatever.
>
> Good point, why harm future choice by imposing this sort of restriction
now?
>
> > robots.txt was the wrong way to do it. If folk _really_ want to go this
> > route I'd suggest using the bit of the namespace already grabbed by
> > robots.txt, ie. robots.feeds.txt etc., to keep things in the same
> > "area". But it's still pretty gross.
>
> Heh, robots.xml and then setup structures within it.  Gadzooks,
reinventing RSD
> and RDF inside robots.txt.
>
> > But we defer decisions about where/how to put this data to the sites
> > hosting, rather than impose a decision from above. We don't need a
> > single location, just some conventions for discoverying those locations.
>
> Indeed, setting the good example and not forcing restrictions is the only
sane
> way to approach it.  I know it's just soooo tempting to whack together a
fixed
> URL but the downsides really make it seem like a bad idea.
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>