Here was my reasoning
1- PubSubHubbub is gaining momentum so I would rather make it a little bit
more generic than dilute it's effort releasing an alternative.
2- PubSubHubbub and Activity Streams are closely promoted and we are moving
away from Atom being the core serialization for activity streams because it
makes the response more complex than it needs to be... think of activities
such as liking, rsvping to events, friending even status updates are way
more verbose than they need to be.
3- We have been discussing some of these changes in this community for a
while: synchronization, authentication, http based discovery I am just
grouping them together so we could release an iteration of the spec that
supports a concrete use case

What do you think ?



On May 19, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Ravi Pinjala <[email protected]> wrote:

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]>
[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>
> http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/wiki/Pshb_OAuth2
>
>
>
> On May 12, 5:04 am, Pádraic Brady < <[email protected]>padraic.br
> [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>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-07.txt
>

Reply via email to