From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:24:47 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Saturday 07 September 2002 5:06 pm, Simon Willison wrote:
> At 17:35 07/09/2002 +0100, Simon Willison wrote:
> >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 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 without bloating it with too many elements (it would be
> > good if it was extendable as well, so the format could be used to
> > specify a new format like instant messenging via jabber without needing
> > any extra elements or attributes added to the DTD).
> I've got a solution. Unfortunately it uses XML namespaces - is this a big
> problem? I've only just got my head around them and I'm not overly keen
> on adding something complicated like namespaces to the spec for no good
> reason. That said, I think this is a pretty cool way of using them :)
I'm not very familiar with them, I only know the basics. My initial
reaction is definitely "over-engineering". What's the support like for
namespaces in the various processors?
I think that there is a good chance that most of the problems that you are
solving could be resolved by simply using URIs, however I have my doubts.
My gut instinct is telling me to leave namespaces until pingback 2.0 -
remember 99% of all files will simply define xml-rpc and one fallback :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:05:01 BST