- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:30:30 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Then why are you only bringing it to the attention of the wider world now? > I don't mean to pick on you, but it seems like there are lots of developers these days > who are writing protocols in secret, and then expecting the world to come along for the ride, > no matter how badly they interact with the infrastructure. I don't think these developers, or anyone else, are under an obligation to share a proposal with the world before they think it's ready. It can feel a little like taking dictation when something rather fully-formed emerges from some company's intranet, but successful protocols can emerge in many ways, and these developers appear quite willing to make reasonable changes to their spec (they had already added RSS before this thread began, iirc). > As such, I think there's more value in something more capable than specific, > lest we all drown in a sea of special-purpose, needlessly application-specific protocols. One example of an unreasonable request would be to suggest that developers are required to solve a much bigger problem then they've set out to. In this case, I don't see a reason to apply stop energy. The PubSubHubbub effort is clearly not going to hurt the Web or the Internet in general, the link relation namespace is not especially crowded, and the IETF is free to modify or expand the definition of the hub relation over time. With that in mind, I don't think the text of the registration should or will stop people if the proposed relation turns out to be useful for non-feed media types. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 16:31:16 UTC