[PP-main] working towards peer press 1.0
lists at itsg.net.au
lists at itsg.net.au
Mon Mar 13 05:58:51 CET 2000
well, i'd like to see the ability for affiliate sites to choose
whether or not to download the binary data after previewing it's
ok - work with me here 8^)
when the affiliate site posts the data onto the pp network, here's what
it might look like:
<email>fred.smith at example.net</email>
<synopsis>this is an interview with the development team of
<data>BINARY CONTENTS OF THE FILE WOULD GO HERE</data>
when the affiliate sites receive the description of the file,
it would be the above minus the <data></data> and the contents
in between. they can then poll the server for the content if they
there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it this way.
the main advantage i think would be that you don't have to worry
about sites moving the content around - instead, pp carries the content
on its servers. the disadvantages are then of course bandwidth usage
also, if the content (ie photo) is referenced from inside a text document
(ie article), there should be some kind of option in the protocol to
automatically receive the binary data.
am i way off course here?
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Nick Lothian wrote:
> > does everyone think that the system would be better if *any* sort of
> > binary data were simply described in XML and then the affiliate sites
> > decide on a case by case basis of what data types they will receive?
> Yes, this is what I was saying. It brings up another point, though - should
> the syndicate XML file
> contain the file being syndicated, or should it point to it?
> For example, it is pretty simple for an XML file to contain a plain text
> story (or one with tags for formatting). However, for other rich media types
> (MPEG files for instance), the affiliate sites would probably want the file
> and the description separate, so they can download the description, and then
> decide if they want to get the actual content.
> Perhaps we should have both: the file can contain <CONTENT> or it can
> contain a <CONTENT-URL> pointer to the resource.
> This brings up the problem of older material - if the original site
> publishes using <CONTENT-URL>, and then moves (or deletes) the file what
> happens then?
> Also, if you are publishing a GIF file, for instance, how do we stop people
> displaying the picture on their site without copying it (ie, using the
> picture hosted on your site, with all the bandwidth problems that causes).
> Should we worry about this? Sites can use the HTTP-REFERER thing to block
> direct access - but that is a little messy. Some sites might actully want
> you to use the one on their site, so they can track interest in that item or
More information about the Peerpress-main