There are many attributes of an item published via PSHB that one might want
to select on in order to build a custom feed. Location is certainly one of
the more interesting ones. However, there are many others. For instance, it
would be interesting to subscribe to the work of specific authors, not just
feeds. Or, feeds from anyone at a particular domain (like a company), or all
items that contain the word "Foobar"... Certainly, URL conventions could be
constructed to cover many of the common cases, however, what we'll end up
with if we go too far down that road is a situation where many items are
being published in multiple feeds (wasting resource) and we'll still want to
have the capability to do things like subscribe to words or phrases in
published items.

Personally, I think we should restrain ourselves from defining too many URL
conventions and instead think about the more general problem of doing
content-based subscriptions on aggregates of feeds. I think it would be best
to leave core PSHB itself as a simple "topic-based" system with a simple
core subscription syntax (i.e. subscribe by feed URL only...) and a
mechanism to pass "firehose" feeds to more complex subscription systems.
Then, we should define companion specifications for systems that would allow
content-based filtering of feeds in more complex ways.

bob wyman

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Michael Barinek <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not sure if location based "topics/feeds" have been discussed in the
> past, but here's something else that I've been playing around with.
>
> I've been including 'hub.lat' and 'hub.lon' parameters in subscription
> requests and then filtering inbound feeds by location (when available).
>
> for example...
>
> hub.callback=http://your.hostname.com&hub.lat=39.51&hub.lon=76.24
>
> I'd be interested in getting feedback - interesting, not interesting,
> doesn't fit...type stuff?
>
> Here's a small application spike (still rough around the edges) that I've
> been playing around with http://www.localhash.com/
>
> Thanks
>

Reply via email to