From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 18:25:56 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 08 September 2002 4:08 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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 assume you mean because otherwise the clients have to parse the document
anyway? If documents are required to have matching header and <link>, then
this is not so.
> 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.)
"Must" is wrong, I think ("May" is better). It keeps backwards
compatibility as well.
-----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 - 18:05:00 BST