While I can see the value in some of the suggested changes, you're really talking about a completely new protocol here. Something like allowing arbitrary data formats, for example, wouldn't work in the current model where the hub parses the feed and only sends the differences.
One of the strengths of PuSH (relatively speaking) is that it's a fairly simple protocol, and works well in a specific use case. I feel like a lot of the suggested extensions would complicate the protocol disproportionately to the gains that would be made. --Ravi On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Monica Keller <[email protected]>wrote: > Guys I just posted a proposal for a new revision to the PubSubHubbub > spec which includes looking beyond Atom, synchronization and > authorization. > > Let me know what you think > http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/wiki/Pshb_OAuth2 > > > > On May 12, 5:04 am, Pádraic Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > > Great! Though now I have to update lots of code ;). Good to see it's > > not dead. > > > > Paddy > > > > On 12 May 2010, at 07:22, James Holderness <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > FYI, James S just published a new version of the Tombstones draft. > > > > >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-07.txt >
