Re: [syndication] Cross-Site Unique ID Formats? And ID Debating...

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

Well, since my name was mentioned, we already did that a few years ago. We
give channels registered on my.userland.com an id. But the idea didn't seem
to catch on too well.

The idea of getting on top of what's going on in RSS-land is not likely to
work. It's just an illusion perhaps to some that this is the top of the
pyramid or the center of the universe. New ideas take a lot of selling,
patience and hard work, and then bending to help people do it the way they
want to do it, for whatever reason they want to.

I think Jeff's question is right on point -- where is your XMLization, let's
start there. You can be #1 if you want, but get some good content flowing,
that's what it's about, not organizing it or getting people like me to "jump
in".

BTW, this isn't really a problem in the big picture. If a site stops
updating, for whatever reason, have your script stop reading it so often. If
you have two versions of the same site in your scan list, delete one.
Low-tech is the way of the Web and the Way To Go. I love linkrot. It's why
the Web works.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Morbus Iff" <morbus@disobey.com>
To: <syndication@yahoogroups.com>; <rss-dev@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 6:10 PM
Subject: [syndication] Cross-Site Unique ID Formats? And ID Debating...


> >> Again, does our current purpose scale well? Can we editorialize one
million
> >> rss feeds, checking for all possible aliases, defects, user idiocies,
and
> >> so forth, while still giving ourselves time to read the damn feeds that
> >> we're programming software for?
> >
> >It certainly may not scale, but even if it doesn't it's something that's
> >doable and useful now, and can hopefully grow into something that _can_
> >scale.
>
> Ok. Say we all agree that "major providers of rss feed listings will use a
unique id architecture", then how should we handle it? Say XMLtree wants to
keep their list going, I want to make a list, and Barr wants to keep his
individual list going.
>
> How, how, how do we combine them all together into one massive list? We
certainly don't need duplication of effort. And what if Winer doesn't want
to jump in? How do we handle those who don't join? Do we?
>
> What if we did unique IDs based off "epoch seconds,list id", such that if
there were three providers numbered 3, 4, and 5 and they each added a
channel at the same exact moment in time, it'd be something like
"91374293,3" and "91374293,4" and "91374293,5"?
>
> I still, to be honest, don't see any compelling reason to use unique ids.
Sure, it may be good *now*, when the world is relatively small and meager,
but why waste the time worrying about them if they're *only good enough* for
this point in time?
>
> The words "hopefully grow into something that can scale" do not put me at
ease. We shouldn't hope something scales, we should make damn well that it
does. 'Member Gnutella? (and I'll ignore any comments about "well, hey, he
said it would only handle 300 hosts")...
>
> --
> Morbus Iff
>
>  Disobey has been mentioned in The Netly News, Internet World, ABC News,
>    Bruce Sterling's Dead Media Notes and many more. Microsoft and 3Com
>   ripped us off also... that's GOTTA mean we're important. And hell, we
>   got a rise out of Playboy! With sections that have nothing to do with
>     the others, you'll like at least one thing. No, really. Go there.
>
> -07--- <\/> ---- <http://www.disobey.com/> ------- Bad Ego, Any
Notice ----
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>