On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems to me that the client model for processing a single vs. > aggregated distribution might be quite a bit different. And also, the > original upstream feed might have used entry/source already (this > makes me nervous about the whole notion of PuSH co-opting <source> for > its own purposes). > > I was wondering if you might want to put an extension element here as > a child of feed, before the entries start, in a pubsubhubbub > namespace, saying "the following are aggregated by the hub". You can > do this safely because Atom has MustIgnore on markup it doesn't > recognize (hint hint).
This is the first time I've heard someone point this out. I believe the atom:source element was specifically included in that spec for the purpose that PubSubHubbub is using it. Bob Wyman seemed to indicate the same thing too in some other email threads on this list. Could you clarify how this is "co-opting" the source element? > [Um, when I read this section, there's a little voice in the back of > my head shouting "YAGNI!"] I disagree with "YAGNI" here. Take world-wide RSS traffic. Multiply by 1,000,000. We will need aggregated delivery to fully utilize links. -Brett
