From: Ian Hickson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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
> hixie.ch 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" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' 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 : Mon Sep 09 2002 - 05:05:00 BST