Also, I think the mitigating factor here is that the hub folks have
been working on this for a while, and Link isn't approved or an RFC yet.
Cheers,
On 21/09/2009, at 4:44 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
I'll comment in reverse order...
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Brett
Slatkin
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:16 PM
So far, the amount of push-back I've received trying to get into the
registry has reinforced the idea that links with the URI extension
relation aren't good enough to be accepted as standards.
I am not sure what you mean by this. The pushback here has been
mostly about reserving the general term 'hub' to be used exclusively
for a single protocol. Can you point me to where statements were
made that indicated URI extension relations are not good enough for
standards?
In the current working draft for XRD (an OASIS standard proposal) we
include a URI extension relation which has specific processing
meaning because we felt it was more appropriate than registering
something so specific. In WebFinger we decided to use the relation
type 'describedby' for resolving (the proposed) acct: URIs but also
included an URI extension relation to allow servers to explicitly
indicate their support of the protocol. These are two examples (at
least one is a proposed standard) for using URI extension relations.
* Is anything bad going to happen if someone tries to talk PSHB to
an
endpoint linked as 'hub', which doesn't support it?
Probably not.
* Are there currently other protocols likely to use this? Are they
likely to operate side by side for the same feed?
Hopefully there will be a bunch of companion/extension protocols to
the core PubSubHubbub spec that make it function efficiently for all
content types. But no, there aren't any other protocols I know of, at
this point that would also use this <link> relation. The only other
one that comes close is rssCloud, which has its own element in the
RSS
namespace.
Given these answers, I don't think there is a problem with
registering 'hub' as a relation type (if you can provide a
description that does not limit it for a single protocol in a single
document type). You can then define in your protocol how clients
should behave when they encounter such links.
But again, I just don't understand why rel='http://pubsubhubbub.net'
is any lesser than rel='hub'.
EHL
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
