[blogite] Thoughts on the updated spec

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Simon Willison (simon@incutio.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 11:03:32 BST

At 08:09 08/09/2002 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
>Ok, here's an updated spec. It contains nearly everything from the last
>version of the spec, plus a lot more. However, there are absolutely no new
>features (i.e. if you implemented the last version you still do everything
>in the spec) -- all I did was make it much more specific about what should
>be implemented.
> http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback-0.9

Looks good. There are two things I would suggest we add to the spec:

1. A set of standard fault codes. The ones I can think of off the top of my
head are:
    1 - The specified target URI does not exist on this site
    2 - The specified target URI is not a PingBack enabled resources (i.e
not a permalink)
    3 - The specified source URI did not contain the expected link
    I'm sure there are one or two more - it would definitely make sense to
standardise on these.

2. The X-PingBack HTTP header alternative method of auto discovery. The
advantage this it allows non-HTML resources on the web to be PingBack
enabled, as per this message:


The disadvantages of this are, well, nothing really. Clients don't have to
implement it if they are only interested in HTML pages as it will always be
sent in addition to a <link> element.

What do people think of the XML processing instruction auto-detection
method (also mentioned in the above email) ?



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/

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 12:05:00 BST