Re: [blogite] Thoughts on the updated spec

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Jim Dabell (jim-blogite@jimdabell.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 17:44:14 BST

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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
things (e.g. a javascript bookmarklet) won't be able to access the http
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.

- --
Jim Dabell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9e35j3tJNldoQhi8RAsYqAKDQLXfapGXxaLUXRk9lXqz/8zdJkACgymtC
10fiRzmUkmcCSOXMrWwFvyg=
=kRij
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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 - 17:05:00 BST