On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:34:18 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Snell wrote: > > For XMPP-enabled environments, draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-01 > > is Goodness. Not every environment is going to be XMPP-enabled. > > Just about everyone is HTTP POST enabled. > I think that focusing on the differences between XMPP and HTTP POST > is not really useful in this discussion. Each transport protocol has > advantages in one or another environment. What's interesting is not the > transport protocol but rather the payload that is transported! (i.e. The > slogan "It's about the Entries, Stupid!" applies in this case.)
You're absolutely correct of course. > I think the important point is that there probably isn't a great > deal of justification for having different payload formats for these > protocols. If we strip away the XMPP and HTTP "transport" wrappers, > overhead, etc. I don't see any reason why it would be useful to have > different messages. > Honestly I do not know enough about the use cases of the XMPP based mechanism to pass judgement on their payload formats. What I can say, however, is that for the Atom Notification Protocol (ANP) approach, nothing more than the entry and feed elements are necessary. If we can get some alignment between this and the XMPP stuff, wonderful, but I'd very much like to avoid adding anything else to the ANP payloads > bob wyman > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
