Mashable OPML attention

re: Mashable OPML attention

Pieter Overbeeke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:34:59 GMT

Opmlmanager.com does support inclusion! Just add a link that points to a opml file. The inclusion rule for now is that the file you point to ends with .opml => type="link" url="http://www.something.com/someopmlfile.opml"
Normal links are visualizez with the orange dot, links to opmlfiles with an arrow (=>)

Dave Winer has proposed a new approach to inclusions with an extra type for inclusions => type="include". I'm in favour of type="opml". This will make it possible to include opml-files that do not have the extension .opml. Which makes it easier for webdevelopers to generate opml from a script => opml.php or opml.aspx...

re: Mashable OPML attention

Pieter Overbeeke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:36:20 GMT

btw, its Pieter (pronounce like Peter) ;)

re: Mashable OPML attention

alexbarn — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:01:47 GMT

thanks Pieter! (sorry about the mispelling!)

re: Mashable OPML attention

James Corbett — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:36:00 GMT

I hope Alex doesn't mind if I ask here Pieter but will you be adding AJAXy features such as drag and drop rearrangement of directory entries as you can do in OPML Editor? That would make OPMLmanager even better than it already is :)

re: Mashable OPML attention

james governor — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:36:49 GMT

centralisation is not important. its replication thats important. thats how come i can't belive you didnt point to SSE here...

its a quadrangulation of SSE, attention, RSS and OPML that creates the opportunity, no? or that is a triangulation of specs leading to attention?

re: Mashable OPML attention

alexbarn — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:56:32 GMT

Ok James, I see your point.

Let me explain.

In this context, 'centralization' is meant in a virtual sense. The nice thing about OPML is that it can be (but doesn't *have* to be) a distributed model: the first OPML file sits at url (a) and can point to another OPML sat at url (b), so as the url at (b) is updated the one at (a) is too (at least at the point in time that (a) is pinged). So SSE in the scenario I descrbied is not required: thing 'sync' by design. SSE solves other problems.

SSE can come into play as you imply when other data sources need to write to the OPML or RSS. You're right to point this out.