- From: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0600
- 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 UTC