W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0600
Message-ID: <4AAA7B15.8050402@sitepen.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
CC: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, jpanzer@acm.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 9/11/09 7:04 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>
>> We (Dojo toolkit) have been using REST Channels [1] for clients
>> to receive real-time notifications of resource updates.
>> Could/should we use the "hub" relation for resources to reference
>> the URI that Dojo/clients connect to for updates? And if so it
>> seems like "updates" or "notifications" would be a more generic,
>> fitting term than "hub" (but "hub" isn't bad).
>
> I like "updates" or "notifications" -- "hub" seems specific to
> pubsubhubbub, whereas the pointer might be to a SIP notifications
> service, an XMPP PubSub service, or who knows what.
Actually, didn't SIP already define a relation name of "monitor" (and
"monitor-group" for notification of resource changes [1]? Why wouldn't
we follow that precedent (pubsubhubbub could use "monitor" that
couldn't they?). Or does monitor/monitor-group imply something different?
[1]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe-02#section-5.1

- --
Kris Zyp
SitePen
(503) 806-1841
http://sitepen.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAkqqexQACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAyxFQCgrWnBMLIq4Qkl+e9EC78e5SfU
f+sAoIrY6DDdyogMRQPMSM7l2WDaMCAP
=OZpi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 16:31:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT