Comments on: More on feed:

By: MIME types and feed: again

MIME types and feed: again — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:09:22 +0000

Joe Gregorio has a good post about MIME types and the feed: scheme:. There has been much talk today, and in the...[more]

By: Greg Reinacker's Weblog - RSS and MIME types

Greg Reinacker's Weblog - RSS and MIME types — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:15:41 +0000

Pingback

By: Danny

Danny — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:30:15 +0000

re. “We’re not developing a new protocol…”, I agree with the comments that it sure looks like one, and add that however browser-specific, it’s still behaving pretty much like one. This suggests that the functionality required is something like a protocol, and given the problems relating to unregistered schemes (also check the W3C Web Architecture doc) I’d still favour the MIME-type approach, because in addition to providing the hook it is also more generally useful.

By: Jaykul

Jaykul — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:39:47 +0000

I don’t think you get a choice, Richard. (Read my ‘feed:http:// is better’ article…)

If you’ve registered “feed:” … any link that looks like that at all is going to get sent to your application, so you have to handle it. I mean, you can say: We prefer that people use feed:http://www … but if someone puts a link up: feed://www, or even feed:www … your application is going to get invoked.

By: Using feed:// for Subscriptions

Using feed:// for Subscriptions — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:07:30 +0000

Via Greg Reinacker (author of NewsGator): "This seems like a reasonable idea to me...with the obvious benefit that a user could just click on the link, and the aggregator could add a subscription to the feed. As opposed to the situation today, where if the user clicks on a feed link, they'll see (at best) a page full of XML." Further comments can be found in a later post. Genius idea that, once again, will rely on the support of news aggregator programmers....[more]

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:25:53 +0000

It’s starting to look like a vote now ;), but I prefer feed:http://, as mentioned by others this way it’s a browser shortcut.

Also I think we should go for one solution and not feed:// and feed:http://, if we go for that then we are creating yet more confusion. Anyways thats just my 2cts on that topic ;)

By: Feed:Http:// is better?

Feed:Http:// is better? — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:32:52 +0000

Yeah. I could go along with that. This means that everyone that supports the feed: protocol has to… And of course, I wrote a script to show you how.
…[more]

By: Greg Reinacker

Greg Reinacker — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:10:03 +0000

Pete, Steven – I don’t like feed://example.org because then it looks like a protocol – and we’re defining a browser shortcut, not a protocol. In reality, tools will probably have to parse this format, because it will come up in the wild no matter what we do, but I’d rather NOT recommend it. We’ll probably also need to support feed://http://example.org (note the // after feed), but I’d rather not recommend that either.

Manuel -

Re feed:www.host.com/file.xml, I think this is NOT a good idea. http:www.host.com is not technically valid either – browsers might parse it, but that doesn’t make it valid or good! Double slashes should not be optional, in at least the http part of the URL spec. That said, we’ll probably all build pretty tolerant parsers, but that doesn’t mean we should allow non-well-formed URLs.

Re feed.host.com, I wouldn’t expect anyone to allocate an entire host name out of their domain just to support a feed. I see absolutely no value in this, actually…maybe I’m missing your point.

By: Feed URI formats.

Feed URI formats. — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:57:57 +0000

...[more]

By: Steven Wood

Steven Wood — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:06:06 +0000

Please see the following post…

http://www.stevenwood.org/2003/09/17.htm#a370

(I’m having a few problems getting my trackback working)

Steve