Re: [blogite] Thoughts on the updated spec

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Jim Dabell (
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 19:20:38 BST

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 08 September 2002 4:37 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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. :-)

Good point, but as I am not one of those people who have already implemented
it, I don't want to give you guys extra work :)

> 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".

The assumptions I was making are that:

a) There are some potentially useful applications that do not have access to
the HTTP headers, so the information needs to be in the document.

b) Having the information in the HTTP headers is a useful optimisation that
95% of people are able to do.

I'm still undecided about a), so I guess I'll quit arguing this point :)

- --
Jim Dabell

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


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 : Sun Sep 08 2002 - 22:05:00 BST