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

[Sebastien Estienne]

2005/9/29, Marc Krochmal <marc at apple.com>:
>
>
> 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.
>
i agree that using TXT record to handle the RSS versions may be a good solution

> Something to consider...
>
> -Marc
> _______________________________________________
> avahi mailing list
> avahi at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/avahi
>


--
Sebastien Estienne