Re: more on the simplified feed format

[Ken MacLeod <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dare Obasanjo <kpako@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> --- Seairth Jacobs <seairth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Note that lack of the etag attribute is because I realized you
> > could handle that bit by doing a conditional GET on the entry
> > document itself (see my response to Randy).  This would also
> > reduce the number of times the feed itself needs to be updated
> > (kept synchronized with the entry documents).
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculously expensive this is? I have users with
> hundreds of feeds and the thought of performing a few dozen GET
> requests for a single feed (e.g. if you are subscribed to Robert
> Scoble's feed) is impractical.

I agree on the part where the feed must contain "change" information
for each item (modified or E-Tag).

You're not referring to doing individual GETs for items that have
actually changed though, correct?

> As it is I already have gotten less and less use from feeds that
> don't provide full content

I see SSFF as a solution to that problem.  By taking out the necessity
of "shrinking" the feed, aggregators now have a formal place to get
the full content and most providers have no reason to restrict that.
Those providers that do wish to restrict that (paid subscribers only,
for example) will continue to restrict the publicly machine readable
portion of their site (and most people using aggregators won't be
reading their sites either, natch :-).

Thoughts?

  -- Ken