> > Either way, there are common issues that overlap. > Absolutely. Which is why I suggested that PSHB define "new push project X" as the mechanism by which it transports feeds.
The main downside to that though, is that there wouldn't be a lot left to talk about with Atom and the Push in separate projects. PSHB would just become "Push project X" + "Atom Feeds". My main concern with generalizing PSHB is that then you can't rely on a rel=hub link to be a real feed hub. PSHB + Atom is a bit confusing to put on a link on your site don't you think? But if we started with a new spec for the push, then the expectation right from the start is that new PPX endpoints and pushes are arbitrary and not for blind consumption. It just feels like that expanding the spec to include anything, takes the currently nice trustable rel=hub links and makes them suddenly uncertain. I am not sure that is a good thing. A PSHB -Atom +JSON (or +whatever) appendix is possible, but just seems a bit messy.
