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

Re: [syndication] shared feed lists

> It is sufficient if one has the ability to add <link> tags to their
> <head>.  But what if you cannot?

Under what situations would you not be able to do this?  What tools in current
use have this limitation?  I'm not arguing it's not possible, more that it's an
edge case, not the norm.

> > 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.
>
> The analogy isn't quite right here.  favicon.ico generates a lot of
> traffic because most browsers request it.  robots.txt is requested by
> most well-behaved robots.  This file is intended to be a simple
> bootstrap--a way of finding the feeds.  It should be requested
> infrequently and by relatively specific tools.

What's troubling here is two-fold.  Use of a static filename needlessly burdens
sites that offer this data dynamically.  Second it opens the door to using
poorly-mannered spiders that go digging for stuff that's never going to exist.

Not to mention the idea that if a site's go the data dynamically we end up
forcing them to jerry-rig things in their httpd.conf to rewrite the static URL
to the script.  Granted, this is likely an edge case as well but one perhaps
slightly larger than the "can't alter the head section" group.

Besides, this also raises the hassle of the format being used ending up being
far too limited.  If we've got a shot at exposing valuable information it might
as well be thought out.

Now, all this said, I think the idea of promoting a set of best practices that
raises the level of feed awareness is a GOOD thing, technical arguments
notwithstanding.

-Bill Kearney