Subject:
|
Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:29:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3431 times
|
| |
|
|
Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
> I still am curious if rss-to-nntp converters are any good.
The term "RSS-to-NNTP" does not really make sense. RSS is a data format,
whereas NNTP is a protocol.
You can convert RSS-feeds (independently of their transport protocols) to plain
text and post them to an appropriate newsgroup. But you can't (as far as I can
see) run a threaded discussion using RSS. What we do is that we get some
external RSS feeds (news from BBC, DR and ÚF) and then discuss them directly in
the newsgroups. The downside to that approach is that even when there
occasionally is a feedback/discussion page for the news item, our discussion
will not automatically end up there.
Another thing you can do is to transfer RSS-over-HTTP feeds unchanged to NNTP.
With a single centralized server like Lugnet, the value of doing that is less
than with a distributed network of NNTP servers like Usenet, but if everybody
started to dump their RSS data into the appropriate newsgroups, it would still
give easier access to all the different RSS sources. The benefit of posting the
raw RSS to the newsgroups is that you don't throw information away. The
downside is that there aren't (m)any RSS-over-NNTP clients yet, so the value of
the collected information still depends on somebody writing/expanding some RSS
interpreters/aggregators.
> I'm guessing they're not because the rss feeds do not come
> with enough info to take advantage of a typical newsreader's
> more powerful features. Am I correct?
I would say that you're not correct. Yes, RSS is not good for threaded
discussions. But RSS is a fine format for submitting news items, which may
start a discussion, which then will take place using traditional newsreaders.
> Anyone tried it?
Yes.
> Is there any such thing as a beefy rss feed? What if someone were to provide,
> say, in addition to a standard rss feed, a deviation [gasp] which sneakilly
> contained extra stuff specifically for an rss-to-nntp converter to use? that is,
> to fool a newsreader into recognizing rss as fullblown news. Hmm, sounds like a
> dumb idea now that I say it, considering how different the two are..
What should the point be? Would anybody ever try to run a threaded discussion
using RSS? Isn't RSS better for seeding a discussion than for the actual
discussion?
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bus stop:
http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Milj%F8er/Bregnerod/Busstoppested/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) This is great feedback, Jacob. Your responses make excellent points. I agree that RSS is better for seeding discussion. -Suz (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| --SNIP-- (...) --SNIP-- I think you could run a threaded discussion running RSS. If you look at the RSS 2.0 specifications there is a tag <category> which could be used to categorise each post as a subcategory of its parent. It's not as elegant as a (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
| (...) Thank you, thank you! I am so happy with the responses and discussion in this thread. It's great for me to hear all your views and to learn so much in a hurry. Some of it's over my head. ..I'll still need to read the posts carefully, and take (...) (19 years ago, 21-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
77 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
