[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
James M Snell wrote:
> Steven Lees wrote:
> > It would be great to hear about those issues. For what it's
> worth, we released our "v1" spec of SSE today. (Not to say
> that there isn't room for more discussion.) We also renamed
> it to "FeedSync", hoping that name might be a little easier
> to remember/spell/etc. The new spec is on
The main issue I have had with FeedSync is that deleted entries look
like "live" entries for every consumer that doesn't understand FeedSync.
This means that you cannot use FeedSync unless all clients are
FeedSync-aware. James idea of using an extension element solves this
The "by" endpoint label is supposed to be user-readable but unique; that
seems difficult to achieve. I would like to see some advice on how to
achieve this, especially in the case where one authenticated user has
multiple endpoints (say, two phones, an in-office desktop machine, and a
large pool of laptops).
> We considered a separate spec for tombstones
> that was independent of the other sync extensions.
> It didn't seem worth it given the benefit of having
> all of the sync-related extensions in a single,
> coherent spec. If you want spam control, chances
> are pretty good you want one-way sync, and at that
> point you want more than just tombstones.
In a single-user blog, where the user is editing the blog in both a
blogging client and in the blog's web interface, the blogging client
should be notified (via the feed) when the user deletes an entry using
the web interface. A simple tombstone mechanism is sufficient for
handling this, because none of the conflict-resolution stuff is