At 10:22 AM -0400 8/25/05, Bob Wyman wrote:
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.
+1 to Bob's comments. I can see reasons why I would want my firmware
updates aggregated through an intermediary.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
