No extension is necessary. There's nothing that says a website has to have exactly 1 or 0 RSS feeds and that they most be for global syndication. Anyone in control of their site can dump a plain ol' RSS (or Atom, or JSON) feed at /foo/part-3-has-been-posted.xml. I've done this on my own site.
This is not (really) a technical problem. It's a cultural one—getting people to actually make hyperspecific micro feeds available.
Nah an RSS feed has the ability to contain n feed items. This proposed new protocol would have a maximum of 1 item. The closed contract (1 notification only, ever) makes sure that it doesn't become yet another avenue for producers to push content that you didn't ask for.
"RSS but for just 1 item" and "A brand new protocol that is functionally equivalent to RSS for just 1 item" are both just contracts. What makes you think that the latter is more enforceable?
Comments
It could be implemented as some type of extension to RSS.
No extension is necessary. There's nothing that says a website has to have exactly 1 or 0 RSS feeds and that they most be for global syndication. Anyone in control of their site can dump a plain ol' RSS (or Atom, or JSON) feed at /foo/part-3-has-been-posted.xml. I've done this on my own site.
This is not (really) a technical problem. It's a cultural one—getting people to actually make hyperspecific micro feeds available.
100% this. Per-topic RSS feeds solves this perfectly.
Nah an RSS feed has the ability to contain n feed items. This proposed new protocol would have a maximum of 1 item. The closed contract (1 notification only, ever) makes sure that it doesn't become yet another avenue for producers to push content that you didn't ask for.
"RSS but for just 1 item" and "A brand new protocol that is functionally equivalent to RSS for just 1 item" are both just contracts. What makes you think that the latter is more enforceable?