Let me frame the challenge/opportunity this way: Presume that I have a URL of my own, given a recipient URL, I want to be able to send a message "at it" and have it be received on the other end, and be routed properly, based on the recipient's rules. As the sender, I just want to be able to send a message and know that the recipient should receive it.
This parallels having a "from" email address and sending it "to" a recipient email address. But in this case we're replacing email as the identifier with a URL. So if I self-identify as http://twitter.com/factoryjoe and I want to send a message to http://twitter.com/redmonk, if on that endpoint is a discovery document that suggests where to send messages and how to sign them so that the messages will be received and not rejected outright, I think we're getting somewhere. I see no reason not to use ATOM or XMPP for this, except that XMPP doesn't work well with today's shared hosting environments. Perhaps we use XRDS discovery to point to an XMPP endpoint and then offer a fallback ATOM endpoint in the case that XMPP would fail? You know that I'm against inventing unnecessarily -- which is why I pointed out this microblogging effort. It might not be the way to do it, but it gives us an example of someone's thinking that's actually been implemented and gives us something to build against. Chris On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My question is given the simplicity of microblogging, assuming we get an > activity stream spec/solution figured out, wouldn't it implicitly solve the > "open" microblogging need? Given that a microblogging "action" is the same > as its "notification", it looks to me to be a specialized subset of activity > streams. > > EHL > > > > On 6/18/08 11:22 AM, "Stephen Paul Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Is this something we could/should implement? How could we make it more > > "DiSo" friendly? (Sorry I need to read it over but haven't had a chance > > yet). > > I have said this to Steve privately, and I will now say it publicly: > reinventing messaging protocols over HTTP is a *bad* idea. We have > protocols (more than one, two very popular ones), *open* *standard* > protocols (yes, I'm looking square at SMTP and XMPP - as well as NNTP, > which is less applicable) that do messaging *well* *really well* they > were, well, *built for it*. They have faced the problems and improved > to solve them. They stand the test of time, *do* the job, and are > *widely* implemented. Unless there is a use case that one of the > existing standards cannot meet (which I doubt more each time I > consider this), I see no reason to invent anything, only to build > tools to use what we have. > > Furthermore, reinventing content pushing over HTTP is a *bad* idea. > There are several *open* and *implemented* (although less widely than > messaging protocols) standards for pushing content *even specifically > post or blog-type content* over HTTP. XML-RPC and AtomPub, to name > two. > > (Yes, this is a variation on my "please don't invent anything" rant.) > > -- > - Stephen Paul Weber (Singpolyma) > > Web: http://singpolyma.net/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/singpolyma > IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "DiSo Project" group. > To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/diso-project?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > -- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Source Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
