From: mort (manuel@netbustion.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 17:55:40 BST
On Sat, 2002-09-07 at 18:35, Simon Willison wrote:
> The file consists of a <pingback> element containing multiple <interface>
> elements, and <interface> elements can include other interface elements
> inside an <alternatives> block. The above file translates as:
To me a bunch of alternatives
<alternative id="0">
<interface></interface>
<interface></interface>
<interface></interface>
</alternative>
<alternative id="1">
<interface></interface>
</alternative>
everyone with a set of interfaces makes more sense. And you could use
ids to indicate preferred order.
> As you can see, the file can ask for linkers to use multiple interfaces
> (send me an xml-rpc thingy AND email me), and can also specify alternative
> interfaces for clients that are unable to satisfy certain requests.
This AND / OR syntax is very nice.
> One potential problem with the above is that interface details are
> contained as a single block of CDATA. This is pretty inflexible - for
> example, it would be better if PingBack servers were indicated with a host,
> path and port
these seem natural attributes of the type="xmlrpc"
and it would be good if email addresses could request a
> specific subject. Any ideas for a way of adding that to the above format
the email thing could follow mailto: syntax.
user@host.tld?subject="subject"
How about that?
or maybe <interface type="email" to="to" at="server" subject="subject">
Ditto for jabber
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 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:05:01 BST