On 6/6/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<weblog>/site
<weblog>/site/feed/rss
<weblog>/site/feed/atom
<weblog>/site/feed/comments
<weblog>/planet
<weblog>/planet/group/<planetgroup>
<weblog>/planet/feed/rss?group=<planetgroup>
<weblog>/planet/feed/atom?group=<planetgroup>
I think there are some good and bad things about this approach ...
1. (+) It allows a weblog to be extended with Site and Planet
functionality, but still function completely as a normal weblog if
desired. The new functionality is only added on.
2. (+) It more easily allows us to standardize the location of things
like the site wide content and planet content.
3. (+) Technically we don't have to make all the changes I originally
mentioned to provide this functionality, but i think this approach would
still benefit from my original suggestion.
4. (+) It lessens the burden on users to setup and manage custom content
for site wide and planet content. technically we can still offer all
the site wide and planet feeds without the user doing any configuration
at all.
We can do that without all of the URLs you listed.
5. (-) It adds more stuff to the url structure.
That's the part that I really don't like.
My feeling is that it's definitely nice to have the site wide stuff be
an addon to a weblog and have it not conflict with any of the normal
weblog features and this idea definitely helps accomplish that. What do
others think?
Think this URL scheme goes a little too far. I don't think we need to
give special treatment to site and planet pages. I think this is all
we need:
<weblog>/feed - Atom or RSS feed of weblog
<weblog>/feed/comments - Atom or RSS feed of weblog comments
<weblog>/feed/<feed-page-name> - Other type of feed
That's enough to allow each blog to create custom feeds and for blogs
with access to the Site and Planet page models, we can create
site/planet wide feeds.
- Dave
