[avahi] Re: [avahi-commits] r637 - /trunk/service-type-database/service-types

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 27.09.05 22:07, Marc Krochmal (marc at apple.com) wrote:

> >>I'm also wondering what you mean by the comment that says dns-sd.org
> >>"is not a source that complies with the criterion".  The list on dns-
> >>sd.org doesn't really have a license because it's just a list of
> >>service types.  If you feel like you can't use this list, then I'm
> >>sure we'd be willing to slap a BSD style license header to the top of
> >>this page.
> >
> >Yes, A BSD license would be nice for that. Does the list exist in a
> >form that is more easily parsed for generating a gdbm file?
> 
> Yeah, we've had requests for this.  Just haven't gotten around to it  
> yet.

Do I have your informal assurance that it is OK if we integrate that
database into our software under a BSDish license right now? (no APSL
please!)

> >>I think RSS is important enough that we should think about this a
> >>little first, because whatever we decide, it will be in use for many
> >>years, and it's always a pain if applications that used to browse for
> >>the *wrong* type then have to transition to the new type by browsing
> >>for both for a little while.  I hate it when that happens.  :-)
> >
> >Hmm, HTTP 1.0/1.1 are completely upwards and downwards compatible as
> >far as I know. However this is not true for RSS 0.91 vs. RSS
> >2.0. That's why I used different service types for them.
> 
> I pretty much know nothing about RSS, but according to this site.
> 
> <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss>
> 
> "The elements defined in this document are not themselves members of  
> a namespace, so that RSS 2.0 can remain compatible with previous  
> versions in the following sense -- a version 0.91 or 0.92 file is  
> also a valid 2.0 file. If the elements of RSS 2.0 were in a  
> namespace, this constraint would break, a version 0.9x file would not  
> be a valid 2.0 file. "
> 
> So it sounds like a client that understands RSS 2.0 feeds will also  
> understand RSS 0.9.x feeds.  This means that older RSS clients  
> browsing for "_rss" might discover newer 2.0 feeds that they wouldn't  
> be able to parse.  I'll bet that if a customer came across a feed  
> that they couldn't read, they would quickly replace their out-dated  
> RSS client with a newer version, so this problem solves itself.

Not quite. RSS2.0 doesn't pass validation with a RSS0.91 DTD. (And I
guess the other way around it is true too). Some RSS parsers do a DTD
validity check before processing the RSS data. (ideally all should)

> Actually, it's "sftp-ssh".  The only reason we did that was because  
> the IANA protocol list already had an "sftp", Simple File Transfer  
> Protocol, so we had to pick something else.
> 
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers>
> 
> We decided on "SFTP over SSH", or "sftp-ssh".  Similar sounding to  
> "TCP over IP" or "TCP/IP".  I guess since RSS could use a different  
> transport protocol, then it might make sense to call it "RSS over  
> HTTP", "rss-http".

Ok, I guess I could live with that.

> >BTW: May I politely ask you to add a link to Avahi on either
> >dns-sd.org or multicastdns.org, the way you already added a link to
> >those Java, Ruby or Python implementations?
> 
> No problem.  I added a link for you.

Thank you very much.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering; lennart [at] poettering [dot] de
ICQ# 11060553; GPG 0x1A015CC4; http://0pointer.de/lennart/