From: Simon Willison (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 11:46:25 BST
I think there are some details we should flesh out before we update the
spec. Firstly, how about separating implementation in to "required" and
"recommended" ? Simplicity is good, so the less required features we have
the better (while obviously keeping the system useful).
For example, I would say the only /required/ feature is that someone
(probably but not necessarily blog A) tells blog B that page X on bog A is
linking to page Y on blog B.
This is currently achieved using XML-RPC, but should we open up the spec to
alternative methods? This would make it a lot easier for people to
implement things - for example:
Or even a form on your blog:
If you link to this site and do not have a PingBack enabled blogging tool,
please use this form to inform us of the link:
Page Linked From: _________________________ (URL, including the http://)
Page Linked To: _________________________ (URL, including the http://)
Both of these methods would have the same end effect. Own up, how many
times have you sent your own PingBack server an XML-RPC ping telling it
about a link on another site that probably isn't even aware PingBack
exists? (I know I've done it a few times).
I'm afraid I'm still concerned with the overhead required for an
auto-discovery client. If I post a blog entry with 20 lists I'm not too
keen on my blogging tool having to make 20 HTTP requests checking for
<link> elements. I think <link> auto discovery is a very useful part of the
system but I also think that PingBack clients should have an option of
using a less request-heavy method of finding links to PingBack. What do
people think of the system I specced out here?
-- Web Developer, www.incutio.com Weblog: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~cs1spw/blog/ Message sent over the Blogite mailing list. Archives: http://www.aquarionics.com/misc/archives/blogite/ Instructions: http://www.aquarionics.com/misc/blogite/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 09 2002 - 04:05:01 BST