We have discussed this before. A suggestion was made that a (conceptually) simpler protocol would be *symmetric*. In a symmetric protocol:
- publishers would post to a hub web hook (hubhook ;-) - the trust relation between publisher and hub would be set up in a similar way to how it is set up between subscribers and hubs - would naturally federate (note: not currently true with PSHB) - atom and rss feeds would be a special case - private feeds would be straightforward The objection to this boils down to the difficulty of setting up the publisher-hub relationship, compared to everything that you get for free with feeds. On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
