Re: non-solutions for blogs.msdn.com: (was RSS consumes too much bandwidth)

[Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/9/04 12:48 AM, "Janne Jalkanen" <Janne.Jalkanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If you provide your Atom feed @ say,
> http://www.example.com/feeds/20040909T1330, you get automagical cache
> support.  Of course, if you are fetching the feed at that URI, the date
> has to be the last-modified date of the feed that you saw last, not the
> date the feed was last fetched, otherwise you get too many URIs for the
> same entry, and caching does not help at all. (20040909T1331,
> 20040909T1332, etc).  Urgh.  What a complicated explanation for such a
> simple idea.  Feeling a bit tired, sorry :-)

you could possibly do something like this today without requiring changes to
aggregators ... if the aggregator respects 301 MOVED, then the publisher can
change the subscribed URL for every request.

The inspiration comes from Simon Willison [1] ... except with the URL
changing more often (ie. per user per feed update) ... thus the feed I'm
subscribed to might be
    http://example.org/feed.atom?user=000234&last=20040909T1323
which then changes (via 301 MOVED) to
    http://example.org/feed.atom?user=000234&last=20040910T0805
and so on.

e.

[1] http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2004/09/01/track