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

[Marc Krochmal]

On Sep 29, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

> 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'm 99% sure that we'll be able to add the BSD header but I need to  
talk to Stuart first, and he's in Scotland this week.  Don't worry,  
no APSL.  I'll let you know.



>> 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.

I talked to our RSS expert at Apple yesterday, and asked him if RSS  
has or would ever be transported over anything other than HTTP, and  
he didn't think so.  Obviously he can't tell the future, but assuming  
for the time being it will mostly only ever be used over HTTP, then  
I'm thinking we could even go with "_rss._tcp" and "_atom._tcp".  He  
also suggested that we could deal with the version issue by  
specifying the version in the TXT record.  For example, we could have  
"path091" and "path20" for example, and each one could point to a  
feed in the corresponding format.

Something to consider...

-Marc