datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Feed Paging and Archiving
RFC 5005

Document type: RFC - Proposed Standard (September 2007; Errata)
Was draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history (individual in gen area)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-02
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 5005 (Proposed Standard)
Responsible AD: Lisa Dusseault
Send notices to: mnot@pobox.com

Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Request for Comments: 5005                                September 2007
Category: Standards Track

                       Feed Paging and Archiving

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This specification defines three types of syndicated Web feeds that
   enable publication of entries across one or more feed documents.
   This includes "paged" feeds for piecemeal access, "archived" feeds
   that allow reconstruction of the feed's contents, and feeds that are
   explicitly "complete".

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Complete Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Paged Feeds  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Archived Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Publishing Archived Feeds  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Consuming Archived Feeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix B.  Use in RSS 2.0  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Nottingham                  Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 5005               Feed Paging and Archiving          September 2007

1.  Introduction

   Syndicated Web feeds (using formats such as Atom [1]) are often split
   into multiple documents to save bandwidth, allow "sliding window"
   access, or for other purposes.

   This specification formalizes two types of feeds that can span one or
   more feed documents; "paged" feeds and "archived" feeds.
   Additionally, it defines "complete" feeds to cover the case when a
   single feed document explicitly represents all of the feed's entries.

   Each has different properties and trade-offs:

   o  Complete feeds contain the entire set of entries in one document,
      and can be useful when it isn't desirable to "remember"
      previously-seen entries.

   o  Paged feeds split the entries among multiple temporary documents.
      This can be useful when entries in the feed are not long-lived or
      stable, and the client needs to access an arbitrary portion of
      them, usually in close succession.

   o  Archived feeds split the entries among multiple permanent
      documents and can be useful when entries are long-lived, and it is
      important for clients to see every one.

   The semantics of a feed that combines these types is undefined by
   this specification.

   Although they refer to Atom normatively, the mechanisms described
   herein can be used with similar syndication formats; see Appendix B
   for one such use.

1.1.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].

   This specification uses XML Namespaces [3] to uniquely identify XML
   element names.  It uses the following namespace prefix for the
   indicated namespace URI;

   "fh": "http://purl.org/syndication/history/1.0"

Nottingham                  Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 5005               Feed Paging and Archiving          September 2007

1.2.  Terminology

   In this specification, "feed document" refers to an Atom Feed
   Document or similar syndication instance document.  It may contain
   any number of entries, and may or may not be a complete
   representation of the logical feed.

   A "logical feed" is the complete set of entries associated with a
   feed (as contrasted with a feed document, which may contain a subset

[include full document text]