Re: [pubsubhubbub] Re: Input on request for link relation

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav < 
> <>> wrote:
>     I also want to point out that we really need to work on our
>     messaging and perception that URI extension relation type are in any
>     way inferior or "less cool" than the short registered ones. The
>     sooner protocol authors accept this as a perfectly valid choice for
>     their protocol needs, the better the link framework will be.
> I couldn't have said it better myself. Basically what you are saying by 
> requesting a short relation is that you actively intend to share the 
> relation with others with a view to improving interoperability. By using 
> a URI you control you're saying you want it to have a specific, concrete 
> meaning (while retaining the option of sharing). The more I hear the 
> more it sounds like PubSubHubbub wants the latter and with that in mind 
> I would suggest that is as good an identifier 
> as any.

I think the main beef that folks have with the URI-shaped rels is that 
they're long and awkward. Why is all that "http://" and "/" noise in 
there? That's only useful if you want to dereference the URI. is enough information for an identifier.

Here are some other examples that would probably be less objectionable:

  * hubbub.hub (OpenID-style protocol.rel naming)
  * org.pubsubhubbub.hub (Java-style .. but I personally find it award 
that these are "backwards" compared to DNS.
  * (like a tag: URI without the scheme and date)

These things are much less likely to be considered second-class citizens 
if they don't look so daft.

Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 17:34:21 UTC