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

Re: Input on request for link relation

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:40:15 -0600
Message-ID: <4AAA7D6F.90206@stpeter.im>
To: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
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
Hash: SHA1

On 9/11/09 10:30 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> 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

Good point, I had forgotten about that. We might as well re-use that.


- --
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 16:40:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC