James M Snell wrote:
> Does the following work?
> <feed>
> ...
> <x:aggregate>no</x:aggregate>
> </feed>
I think it is important to recognize that there are at least two
kinds of aggregator. The most common is the desktop "end-point" aggregator
that consumes feeds from various sources and then presents or processes them
locally. The second kind of "aggregator" would be something like PubSub -- a
channel intermediary that serves as an aggregating (and potentially caching)
router that forwards messages on toward end-point aggregators.
Your syntax seems only focused on the end-point aggregators. Without
clarifying the expected behavior of intermediary aggregators, your proposal
would tend to cause some significant confusion in the system. Should PubSub
aggregate and/or route entries that come from feeds marked "no-aggregate"?
If not, why not? From the publisher's point of view, an intermediary
aggregator like PubSub should be indistinguishable from the channel itself.
bob wyman
