Ach, late to the thread again.
When I saw Google Sitemaps I also thought of RDF Site Summary, and did
a sitemap2rss.xsl. But as noted already the role of RSS has mutated
from site summary to a content delivery format, so it wasn't a very
good fit. But it was straightforward to take their data
On 6/4/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I think it would be really wonderful if we were to find that
non-blog web sites start producing this data. My only regret is that Google
has confused matters by publishing this new format to muddy the waters...
It was not published to
Greg Stein wrote:
It was not published to muddy the waters. That implies a specific
intent which was *definitely* not present.
Please accept my apologies for what was poor writing. I can see how
you read my sentence as implying intent to muddy. It wasn't my intent,
however, to imply
--On June 7, 2005 3:17:04 AM -0700 gstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
proprietary connotes closed. We published the spec and encourage
other search engines to use it. There is no intent to close or control it.
Proprietary means owned. Google clearly owns Google Sitemaps.
The license requires
I completely agree. At the core, a feed is just a list of state
changes to web resources.
It will be the perfect format for notifying search engines of all
the changes to a web
site, thereby massively reducing the time it will take them to crawl
the web.
Henry Story
On 3 Jun 2005, at
On 6/4/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham wrote:
I don't see how a highly specialized format for a particular task is
a competitor to or even compatible with what Atom does.
The highly specialized task which is performed using the Sitemap
format is providing lists of
I've been serving my site (not the change log but the actual site) as
an Atom feed for as long as my blog has had an Atom feed.
One nice (and unintentional) side effect of this is that I can
subscribe to the site map in Bloglines and have Bloglines tell me
when my non-blog pages are
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:28:35 +0200, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps we can convince Google to work with the Atom Working Group on
starting an effort to define more compatible formats
Actually, Google Sitemaps is already compatible with the Google sitemap
service. From
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:29:34 +0200, Arve Bersvendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Actually, Google Sitemaps is already compatible with the Google sitemap
service.
err. Make that compatible with Atom
--
Arve
http://virtuelvis.com - http://userjs.org
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
Actually, Google Sitemaps is already compatible with [Atom].
Yes, I've had a number of folk send me mail pointing to the FAQ that
I did not read as closely as I should. In fact, it is great that Google is
willing to accept Atom 0.3 files instead of just their
Bob Wyman wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
Actually, Google Sitemaps is already compatible with [Atom].
Yes, I've had a number of folk send me mail pointing to the FAQ that
I did not read as closely as I should. In fact, it is great that Google is
willing to accept Atom 0.3
On 4/6/05 10:02 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how a highly specialized format for a particular task is
a competitor to or even compatible with what Atom does. There's
nothing in our charter that says we've failed if it isn't possible to
do everything conceivably related to
Graham wrote:
I don't see how a highly specialized format for a particular task is
a competitor to or even compatible with what Atom does.
The highly specialized task which is performed using the Sitemap
format is providing lists of changed web pages on sites. This is precisely
the
13 matches
Mail list logo
