On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, zachary rosen wrote: > > Doing the aggregation / syndication stuff as NNTP doesn't make much sense > > to me. We are creating a web app, it should use web protocols. RSS is > > perfect for this kind of things. It forces us to create the network to be > > far simpler and open than if we did it with NNTP - and that is a very good > > thing. > > I didn't mean to start off such a big thread. But lot of the debate > seems to miss the point, to me -- i wasn't arguing (or even suggesting!) > that we should drop what we're doing and run NNTP servers instead. > > I was trying to call attention in the *transport* (NNTP), not the *format* > (RFC822). Of course metadata and structure are useful. Let's not throw > that away, All i'm saying is that we can look to NNTP for inspiration > when we design our transport, since it was a fairly reliable and successful > way to spread content around. > > And let's face it, folks: we *are* designing a transport. HTTP polling is > not the whole picture. It can't be. There are still open questions about > caching and fetching articles selectively. I agree completly Ping - this is very good advice. > Jay made an important point with respect to RSS: > > > Precisely -- and it sounded to me like people were talking about syndicating > > *the user comments themselves* -- for which is it manifestly not suitable. > > For better or worse, NNTP succeeded at that. > > Of course we can decide we're not going to do that kind of syndication, > and set the issue aside. But let's *know* that we are making that > decision when we make it. Yes and yes. I am all for looking at NNTP for inspiration / experience, and all for knowing the scope of what we are building. I am just against using NNTP over RSS. -Zack > > -- ?!ng >
