> > Since that was an item included in the draft (under channel manager and > > the main>advanced options), I should ask why you recommend not packaging > > software with any sample Plucker-compatible content, for new users who > > don't know any URLs, or don't feel like always keeping up to date with > > them as they change? > > I'm sort of against packaging actual *CONTENT* with the > distribution, and it's also the reason I haven't dumped the urls I've > scraped up over the past few months on the masses. Redistribution of > modified content is verboten in 99% of all cases, unless > explicitly granted > by the content provider (and we should be able to prove that approval). > Transcoding and redistribution is a sticky mess, and I'd like to make sure > the Plucker team doesn't get dragged down in it.
No content is intended to be distributed. Just some sample Plucker-compatible URLs in a list-box dialogue for somee sites to give Plucker a test spin when starting out. > > A button on the manager pulls the updated XML file down from plkr.org > > whenever the user feels like updating it to get the new/changed URLs. > > Who keeps the XML file updated? If no one else, I will mainatain a list of a dozen or two sample sites to give it a spin. If doing a larger more comprehensive directory though, it would be better to offload maintainance of one's URLs to the content providers themselves, since they have more interest in keeping the info up to date. An entry brings them more readers, which is the provider's interest. Readers have the entries, saving them the hassle of having to go and track down the URL to their handheld site, which is their interest. If doing a database directory, can reuse the one source point to generate other ways of plucking like a server-centric model. Best wishes, Robert
