From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 17:44:14 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 08 September 2002 3:20 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Simon Willison wrote:
> > [...]
> Ok, I'll add error codes and X-Pingback.
> Question. Should X-Pingback processing be optional, or should all clients
> look for that HTTP header?
> If we make it optional, then we have the problem that some clients would
> use the <link> element, and some would use the HTTP header. That would be
> bad. Comments?
Optional, but if used, it must match the <link> element imho. I would have
said that it should be treated as the definitive information, but some
header, so the <link> element needs to be the definitive version.
I think the x-pingback will be fairly widely implemented - it's far easier
to parse 100% correctly, and is more efficient.
-----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 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 17:05:00 BST