Upcoming cross-site reading list, Salmon protocol

[charmian]

1. Very informative post about upcoming features at DW.

To wit, there is

a) discussion of the cross-site reading list. It will be a paid user feature, it will only show the last 100 entries and be updated every 60 min, and the entries from the other site will ONLY be visible to the person subscribing to them (even if they are public otherwise).
b) in the future, it will be possible to upload communities to DW, if you are a maintainer (and probably, you should also get permission)
c) the new entry posting page: the 'metaphor' underlying posting will be changed, to incorporate new drafting options,

Anyway, someone has already protested the cross-site reading list, perhaps unaware that RSS/ATOM allows people to read LJ-entries off of LJ. Maybe someone ought to point out to this person that they can at least disable syndication of entry content in RSS/ATOM on LJ? They can't disable it totally, though (if they don't like the fact that they can't totally disable RSS, then they should stop using LJ, because that's how things are there).

EDIT: It seems that DW will actually not be using authenticated RSS for this new feature: http://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/17591.html?thread=1814455#cmt1814455

2. I mentioned the Salmon Protocol in my last post. Here's more info on the subject.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/salmon_protocol_for_distributed_aggregated_content.php <--Read Write Web post on the SP.

http://salmon-playground.appspot.com/ <-- A prototype of the Salmon Protocol

http://www.alevin.com/?p=1806 <-- Blog post about the problem Salmon is meant to solve.

http://groups.google.com/group/salmon-protocol <--The Google Group for people working on the project. Rather technical.

Comments

[matgb]

He has, apparently, turned his feed down to minimal, as a response to me pointing out it was all there.

And even after having been told, repeatedly, that authenticated feeds exist, he still thinks the RSS feed doesn't contain private stuff.

He may have some valid points about privacy, but he's making them so badly it doesn't make any sense, and he's not actually responding to what he's being told :-(

I do think that someone with the feed set to minimum should have that respected, simply because that's consistent, but I also think people who set the feed to minimum are being daft (for the most part, those with privacy concerns for their personal content get a pass).

[torachan]

I think after reading all those comments that it's really just "I hate DW" dressed up in concerns about privacy and stealing content zomg.

[yvi]

Yeah, after the second reply to me, that was the same impression as got. Only thing left for me to do was to reply with "Okay!"

But I am snarky like that ;)

[janinedog]

I got that impression, too, especially since his/her original complaint was that with this feature, people would be less likely to comment on his/her stuff. When that part was debunked, it turned into something totally different.

[charmian]

LOL, well, if he doesn't have his basic facts down, then I don't think his points are completely valid. I think he simply really doesn't understand RSS at all.

I agree. Out of curiosity though, is it even possible for DW to not respect the feed? In other words, if it is set to minimum, my limited understanding is that even if DW chose to ignore their wishes, it wouldn't be possible to pull the data anyway, since it wouldn't exist in the RSS feed.

Never mind, I just read Mark's comment on the news post about how the mechanism they're going to use isn't authenticated RSS.