Re: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land

Tim Bray wrote:

> I mean it needs the URI, because it wants to *subscribe* to the feed, 
> i.e. stash the URI away somewhere and do a GET on it regularly to see if 
> anything's changed.  I've suggested that in fact this proposed scheme 
> shouldn't be named "feed:" it should be named "subscribe:" -Tim

(all imo)

"Subscribe" to me, means ask the server - if you will, a 
subscription has a corresponding registration. "Feed" to me, means 
it's there for the asking, I just have to make a connection. So I 
respectfully disagree with you and Len and prefer "feed" in the RSS 
case.

In work we ran across this feed/subscribe thing this week, and my 
colleagues had to take some time out to unconfuse me. In our case it 
was a continuous feed that you had to register to get access to. I 
suspect making a URI alone to cover the combinations turns out to to 
be tricky, since one implication here is that there's a 
registration/negotiation protocol involved.

Bill de hÓra