Comments on: feed: in the default footer of WordPress http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/ This site is solar powered! Sat, 12 May 2012 06:30:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: slacy http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-12 slacy Wed, 04 May 2005 01:46:42 +0000 http://slacy.com/blog/?p=70#comment-12 Okay, then why can't the filename be enough? You'd never expect anything like this: jpeg://slacy.com/albums/2005/album175.highlight.jpg to ever work, would you? Its not reasonable to think that every possible file would have its own handler. Remember, "http" doesn't mean "handle with my web browser", it means "use the http protocol to fetch this" Those are two totally different things. So, I still assert that it should be: http://slacy.com/blog/wp-rss2.rss2 instead of: feed://slayc.com/blog/wp-rss2.xml Thus, the browser can have a file name extension handler (like its used to doing) and you don't have to pollute the "protocol space" of things that appear before the ":". The problem is that people got confused about if they should end their RSS feed with .rss, .xml, .php, .asp, etc. They need to realize that if its an RSS file, (i.e. XML) then it needs to end in .rss (or .rss2, or .atom as the case may be) and set up handlers in their browser. The problem with this scheme is that there's no consensus in the blogging world about these filename extensions. Blogger.com appears to be using only Atom feeds, and naming them "http://blogname.blogspot.com/atom.xml" and I'm not sure what LiveJournal does. What are the other big blog hosting sites, and what do they do? Okay, then why can’t the filename be enough? You’d never expect anything like this:

jpeg://slacy.com/albums/2005/album175.highlight.jpg

to ever work, would you? Its not reasonable to think that every possible file would have its own handler. Remember, “http” doesn’t mean “handle with my web browser”, it means “use the http protocol to fetch this” Those are two totally different things. So, I still assert that it should be:

http://slacy.com/blog/wp-rss2.rss2

instead of:

feed://slayc.com/blog/wp-rss2.xml

Thus, the browser can have a file name extension handler (like its used to doing) and you don’t have to pollute the “protocol space” of things that appear before the “:”. The problem is that people got confused about if they should end their RSS feed with .rss, .xml, .php, .asp, etc. They need to realize that if its an RSS file, (i.e. XML) then it needs to end in .rss (or .rss2, or .atom as the case may be) and set up handlers in their browser.

The problem with this scheme is that there’s no consensus in the blogging world about these filename extensions.

Blogger.com appears to be using only Atom feeds, and naming them “http://blogname.blogspot.com/atom.xml” and I’m not sure what LiveJournal does. What are the other big blog hosting sites, and what do they do?

]]> By: Paul http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Paul Tue, 03 May 2005 08:20:30 +0000 http://slacy.com/blog/?p=70#comment-11 Actually, I think that this makes perfect sense. The string on the left side of the ':' specifies the type of that url. For example, for http, I should be able to specify an application that handles insecure http locations. And I should be able to specify a different application that should handle secure http locations. By the same argument, I should be able to specify an application that can handle the feed url. This may be my standard browser, or it could be a seperate application. If you wanted to serve your rss feed though https, you would specify the url like feed:https://domain.com./...... I don't know about using mime type. This would require the browser to do a HEAD request to get the mime type and then potentially ignore all of the headers, and send url to a different application. With this scheme, the browser don't have to know anything about the content. All it has to know is that it can't handle the uri scheme. Actually, I think that this makes perfect sense. The string on the left side of the ‘:’ specifies the type of that url. For example, for http, I should be able to specify an application that handles insecure http locations. And I should be able to specify a different application that should handle secure http locations. By the same argument, I should be able to specify an application that can handle the feed url. This may be my standard browser, or it could be a seperate application.

If you wanted to serve your rss feed though https, you would specify the url like feed:https://domain.com./……

I don’t know about using mime type. This would require the browser to do a HEAD request to get the mime type and then potentially ignore all of the headers, and send url to a different application. With this scheme, the browser don’t have to know anything about the content. All it has to know is that it can’t handle the uri scheme.

]]> By: slacy http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-5 slacy Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:36:55 +0000 http://slacy.com/blog/?p=70#comment-5 Yeah, I know, it probably works, but its a total abuse of what the URI scheme was really designed for. Think about all the things on the left hand side of the ":" ftp http https mailto telnet I mean, what does "feed:" really mean? What if I want to serve my feed via https? Do I say "feeds:"? Its really just a mess, and could have been handled via proper MIME handling. Oh, and just because someone has written an RFC, it doesn't mean that we should really be implementing it. And, that RFC hasn't even been submitted for comments yet, so its totally not appropriate for there to be implementations of this out there already. Double-ugh. Yeah, I know, it probably works, but its a total abuse of what the URI scheme was really designed for. Think about all the things on the left hand side of the “:”

ftp
http
https
mailto
telnet

I mean, what does “feed:” really mean? What if I want to serve my feed via https? Do I say “feeds:”? Its really just a mess, and could have been handled via proper MIME handling.

Oh, and just because someone has written an RFC, it doesn’t mean that we should really be implementing it. And, that RFC hasn’t even been submitted for comments yet, so its totally not appropriate for there to be implementations of this out there already. Double-ugh.

]]> By: jet http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-4 jet Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:27:30 +0000 http://slacy.com/blog/?p=70#comment-4 Firefox on the Mac automagically launched NetNewsWire when I clicked on it. It's the first time I've clicked on any XML type link and had the right application launch. Firefox on the Mac automagically launched NetNewsWire when I clicked on it. It’s the first time I’ve clicked on any XML type link and had the right application launch.

]]> By: Paul http://slacy.com/blog/2005/04/feed-in-the-default-footer-of-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Paul Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:03:55 +0000 http://slacy.com/blog/?p=70#comment-3 Here is the <a href="http://www.25hoursaday.com/draft-obasanjo-feed-URI-scheme-02.html" rel="nofollow">page</a> that describes the feed URI scheme. Mac OS X already has support for it, and some of the aggregators that I use already support it. Here is the page that describes the feed URI scheme. Mac OS X already has support for it, and some of the aggregators that I use already support it.

]]>