Re: [pubsubhubbub] Re: Input on request for link relation

[Martin Atkins <mart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:eran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>     I also want to point out that we really need to work on our
>     messaging and perception that URI extension relation type are in any
>     way inferior or "less cool" than the short registered ones. The
>     sooner protocol authors accept this as a perfectly valid choice for
>     their protocol needs, the better the link framework will be.
>
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself. Basically what you are saying by 
> requesting a short relation is that you actively intend to share the 
> relation with others with a view to improving interoperability. By using 
> a URI you control you're saying you want it to have a specific, concrete 
> meaning (while retaining the option of sharing). The more I hear the 
> more it sounds like PubSubHubbub wants the latter and with that in mind 
> I would suggest that http://pubsubhubbub.org/ is as good an identifier 
> as any.

I think the main beef that folks have with the URI-shaped rels is that 
they're long and awkward. Why is all that "http://"; and "/" noise in 
there? That's only useful if you want to dereference the URI. 
pubsubhubbub.org is enough information for an identifier.

Here are some other examples that would probably be less objectionable:

 * hubbub.hub (OpenID-style protocol.rel naming)
 * org.pubsubhubbub.hub (Java-style .. but I personally find it award 
that these are "backwards" compared to DNS.
 * pubsubhubbub.org:hub (like a tag: URI without the scheme and date)

These things are much less likely to be considered second-class citizens 
if they don't look so daft.