W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:33:00 -0500
Message-Id: <200312062033.hB6KX0Nr013911@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Michael Mealling" <michael@neonym.net>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "www-tag @ w3. org" <www-tag@w3.org>

> I'm not sure what your point then again I'm usually the last one to get a jok
> e. Dumb I am. :) 

It's not a joke, per se.  I'm just trying to navigate in a world
of javascript URIs, and where clicking on a link might well result in
code being downloaded and run, perhaps even will the user's full
authority.   It's hard to reconcile that common approach to web
design with WebArch, etc.

Seriously: the way to make subscription easier for users, without
changing browsers and while conforming to WebArch, is to put a
SUBSCRIBE button next to the XML icon.  The SUBSCRIBE button, when
pressed should POST to a server which returns content which tells to
client's machine to subcribe.  The exact mechanism can depend on
content negotiation, but I guess the simplest would be a new media
type for adding feeds to aggregators.   (Nothing but good design
practice would stop this content from being served in response to a
GET, of course.)

But the right way to solve this problem is for people to browse the
web through systems which understand feeds and aggregation.  Those
systems don't even need XML buttons (they can use the LINK in the
head).  Once you have decided you want to give the users a great
experience with their OLD browser, it's almost impossible to avoid the
road to downloadable code, be it javascript, java, or signed native
code.   At least that's my sense of it.

     -- sandro

> -- 
> Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40% inheritance 
> tax. 
> ________________________________
> From: sandro@roke.hawke.org on behalf of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: Sat 12/6/2003 12:01 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Michael Mealling; Dan Brickley; Tim Bray; www-tag @ w3. org
> Subject: Re: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land 
> Ah.  I get it.  This is just like the "Send To Printer" link on some
> web pages, which saves me having to get out a peice of paper and a
> pencil and write a lot of stuff down, or press Ctl-P, or something.
> On MapQuest, the URL is "javascript:window.print()" which seems about
> right.   Javascript is one of a couple ways to make browsers do
> completely arbitrary and unpredictable (and very cool) things.
> This kind of thing should be a POST and appear as a button, not a GET
> and appear as underlined text (or however else users are used to safe
> operations appearing).  How about it POSTs to the server saying "this
> client wants to get your feed" and the server sends back some content
> which, via javascript, 386 machine code [1], a new mime type or
> whatever says "Sorry, I'm not going to bother keeping track of you and
> sending it so you, but you can poll this address (________) as often
> as you want, and see if it's changed."
>      -- sandro
> [1] I hope it's obvious enough where I'm being sarcastic and where I'm
>     being serious here.
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2003 15:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC