[Doh! Thanks Andie]
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Andy Dennie <[email protected]>wrote: > I think Julien meant to include a link to > here<http://blog.superfeedr.com/pubsubhubbub-0-4/> > . > -Andy > > > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:52:13 AM UTC-4, Julien wrote: >> >> For those who do not feel like reading the spec and comparing each of its >> points, here is a summary of the changes, and why >> we think they're good! >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:02:12 PM UTC+2, Julien wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I hope you're doing well. >>> For the past couple months, me and several other people tried to >>> identify >>> how we could make PubSubHubbub better, by fixing some of its issues, >>> but also opening the door to more use cases (private resources... etc). >>> It is based on a lot of experience that we have accumulated by hosting >>> some of the biggest hubs out there, but also conversations we've had >>> with publishers who sometimes didn't go down the PubSubHubbub way. >>> >>> We came to the conclusion that there was no way we could make 0.4 >>> downward compatible because 0.3 makes too many assumption on the >>> types of resources (Atom or RSS feeds). >>> >>> Here is a project of how the spec could evolve. We have already got >>> a lot of feedback from people who implemented the previous spec >>> but also from people who want to implement it now that it solves some >>> of the issues. >>> >>> Git repo (feel free to check out): >>> https://github.com/**pubsubhubbub/PubSubHubbub/**tree/future<https://github.com/pubsubhubbub/PubSubHubbub/tree/future> >>> >>> Human readable version at: >>> https://superfeedr-misc.s3.**amazonaws.com/pubsubhubbub-**core-0.4.html<https://superfeedr-misc.s3.amazonaws.com/pubsubhubbub-core-0.4.html> >>> >>> I would personally appreciate your constructive feedback. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Julien >>> >>>
