On 25 Aug 2005, at 15:45, Joe Gregorio wrote:

On 8/25/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Up to this point, the vast majority of use cases for Atom feeds is the
traditional syndicated content case.  A bunch of content updates that
are designed to be distributed and aggregated within Feed readers or
online aggregators, etc. But with Atom providing a much more flexible content model that allows for data that may not be suitable for display within a feed reader or online aggregator, I'm wondering what the best
way would be for a publisher to indicate that a feed should not be
aggregated?

For example, suppose I build an application that depends on an Atom feed containing binary content (e.g. a software update feed). I don't really
want aggregators pulling and indexing that feed and attempting to
display it within a traditional feed reader.  What can I do?


First, on this scenario, I would be inclined to make the firmware an enclosure
and not included base64.

+1 definitely.


But I still can see a scenario you might be serving up queries via
Atom and those
queries could be 'heavy'. There are, of course, several things you could do:

1. Cache the results.
2. Support ETags
3. Support ETags and 'fake' them so that they change only once a day, maybe
   once a week even.


I would put the following as the most obvious solution

0. have the content link to the file either by using enclosures or content by reference such as
   <content type="application/patch" src="/patch.patch" />

There should be a golden rule: never place binary content in xml. It is ugly and completely unnecessary. Do we put base64 encoded stuff in html? No: that is why there are things like
<img src="...">

Henry

There are undoubtedly others, but the more important part is that your 'do not
aggregate' doesn't really solve the problem. I could, for example,
take one of your
heavy search feeds, convert it to HTML via XSLT and include that via iframe in my home page. *That* traffic is going to be a lot worse than an aggregator
subscription and wouldn't fit the definition of 'aggregation'.

   -joe

--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org


Reply via email to