Danny: Works for me, at least in the sense that I have no problem with
it while wearing either of my blogging or aggregating hats. I would
like to see some of the objections fleshed out a bit, though, just in
case we're overlooking something significant.
--
Roger Benningfield
On 16 Jan 2005, at 9:38 am, David Powell wrote:
Feed id's are optional, so software is likely to use the feed location
to identify feeds. So if a user subscribes to a feed with a faked
"self" link, then they will see the initial entries of the faked
document, merged with future entries from the rea
Saturday, January 15, 2005, 8:52:39 PM, you wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2005, at 8:28 pm, David Powell wrote:
>> 11.1 Verifying the Authenticity of Self Links
> Can someone explain the attack model here? The worst that I can see
> happening is that when you try to subscribe to my feed, you end up
>
On 15 Jan 2005, at 8:28 pm, David Powell wrote:
11.1 Verifying the Authenticity of Self Links
Can someone explain the attack model here? The worst that I can see
happening is that when you try to subscribe to my feed, you end up
subscribed to someone else's. How does this harm anyone but me?
Gr
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:15:46 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this is already possible with RSS 1.0.
>
> Really? How is it done?
My apologies, the RSS 1.0 spec actually says the rss:channel resource is
"...either the URL of the homepage being described or a URL where the
R
Saturday, January 15, 2005, 6:59:12 PM, you wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
>>> solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
>>> of copying.
>>
>>
>>
Danny Ayers wrote:
> we don't have a link from the feed that can be guarenteed to point
> to the feed URI itself.
If these links were in the feed's element it would make life
easier for us at PubSub.com. We currently insert a link pointing to the
source feed into every entry that we inser
Danny Ayers wrote:
This creates a unique situation for users, where they can download a
feed, but possibly not subscribe to it.
Right now there's no way to subscribe from say IE.
That's not the point. That does not result in a support call to the
aggregator vendor, because it's IE's problem.
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:16:37 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Well, it does make it easy for me to put entries in your feed.
> >
> >
> > ...and to confirm they weren't there to start with.
>
> How so? Do I go back and confirm with the server? Why did I downoad a
> whole feed to
Danny Ayers wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:59:12 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of copying.
I see no downside. There are going to be scenarios where it's not
reliable, but ther
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:59:12 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> >
> >> Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
> >> solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:37:47 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
> > solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
> > of copying.
>
> I see no
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of copying.
I see no downside. There are going to be scenarios where it's not
reliable, but there are going to be
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:58 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > Thing is, with the spec as it currently stands, we don't have a link
> > from the feed that can be guarenteed to point to the feed URI itself.
>
> That's not a very robust way to accomplish the
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:58:59 -0800, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Not looking at the spec, but at the feeds we're currently
> producting for AOL Journals, our feeds have ...> essentially pointing to themselves, which I yesterday thought was
> redundant but perhaps is actually
On 15/1/05 7:37 AM, "Danny Ayers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I remember correctly from previous discussions, there is a little
> snag with most browsers only passing the data, not the source URI.
> Thing is, with the spec as it currently stands, we don't have a link
> from the feed that can
Hmmm. Not looking at the spec, but at the feeds we're currently
producting for AOL Journals, our feeds have essentially pointing to themselves, which I yesterday thought was
redundant but perhaps is actually useful. Useful enough to be
mandatory, perhaps?
-John
Danny Ayers wrote on 1/14/2005,
Hmmm. Not looking at the spec, but at the feeds we're currently
producting for AOL Journals, our feeds have essentially pointing to themselves, which I yesterday thought was
redundant but perhaps is actually useful. Useful enough to be
mandatory, perhaps?
-John
Danny Ayers wrote on 1/14/20
Danny Ayers wrote:
Thing is, with the spec as it currently stands, we don't have a link
from the feed that can be guarenteed to point to the feed URI itself.
That's not a very robust way to accomplish the goal. People tend to use
"cp" without thinking about these things. The browser vendors will d
20 matches
Mail list logo
