Re: [blogite] Thoughts on the updated spec

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Ian Hickson (
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 17:08:38 BST

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Simon Willison wrote:
> I agree. Originally I was in favour of the X-Pingback header
> over-riding the <link> element as doing so would allow owners of
> static sites to update all their pingback information but then I
> realised that this would confuse clients that do not look for
> X-Pingback (they would see the <link> element and be unaware that it
> has been over-ridden).

X-Pingback has to win, otherwise there's no performance gain.

> I just spotted the pingback-0.9.1 spec in the specs directory on
> and it's description of X-Pingback looks spot on:

I don't know exactly when you looked, but I changed the description quite
violently several times while editing that spec.

Anyway, I just finished editing 0.9.1. Please read the spec and comment
here. The highlights of this revision are:

   1. Addition of X-Pingback, which overrides the link element.

   2. Addition to requirements of a client -- they must look for an
      X-Pingback header if at all possible. (This, I think, means that
      every implementation so far needs to be changed a bit.)

   3. Addition of defined fault codes. (An optional feature.)

Go forth and implement!

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
"meow"                                          /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 09 2002 - 05:05:00 BST