+1
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Monica Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I think its a good idea. > Many are interested simply in getting pushes for changes in feeds or > arbitrary content. > In addition I would like to clarify that Publishers can also be Hubs. > The protocol should be the same regardless of whether they are getting > pushes from a hub or directly from the publisher (in the case of big > publishers like MySpace and FB, the publisher was the hub) > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Julien Genestoux > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> All, >> I believe that the Publisher -> Hub part of the protocol should be left >> out of the "core" spec. >> The motivation behind it is that many hubs out there (Wordpress, >> Superfeedr's... etc) have different ways of handling this without affacting >> much of how the general "idea" of the protocol works. >> I believe the Section 7.1 should be set as optional, as well as section >> 7.2. >> Something like this would work well, according to me : >> Once a publisher designates a hub he wants to use, he then SHOULD use any >> of the supported method by this hub to notify new content. 7.1 and 7.2 >> should certainly be put as an annex/example of how this can be done. >> What do you think? >> Julien >
