From: Aquarion (nicholas@aquarionics.com)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 18:44:30 BST
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 06:06:01PM +0100, 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?
My main problem with it would be that it appears to change the
implementation of pingback from one single <link> to a forty page XML
file, with excess detail on everything. The whole point of the original
spec was that all the client had to do was send off a single RPC-XML
request saying it was linked to. This is quick, this is efficent, this
is /easy/.
XML-RPC is a nice standard, it's an /easy/ standard, and it was
/designed/ for things like this. It also needs more people to know it
exists. The fact that you *could* use alternatives is valid, but then
again you *could* use Trackback, and the whole point of this was that
Trackback was an overengineered solution to a fairly simple problem.
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 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 19:05:00 BST