Re: [blogite] Thoughts on the updated spec

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Ian Hickson (ian@hixie.ch)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 17:37:48 BST

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jim Dabell wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Well if they have to be same, there's no concept of winning. The spec says
they (RFC2119) SHOULD be the same. In my experience, if you say two things
have to be the same, they never will be.

> > 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.

Um, no offence, but backwards compatability be damned. This thing has only
existed for 2 weeks and the number of blogs implementing this can be
counted on the tips of our fingers. :-)

Let's get it right straight away. I see no advantage to making HTTP header
parsing optional. I just added support for it to my blog and it took all
of one line of code. I really wish we didn't have to consider bookmarklet
implementations, actually, since they are the only reason that the MUST is
qualified by an "if possible". 

-- 
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/
Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 19:05:00 BST