From: Jim Dabell (jim-blogite@jimdabell.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 00:04:43 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 08 September 2002 8:18 pm, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jim Dabell wrote:
> > Okay, well I've got a few proposals for additions and alterations,
> > based on the last version. The big thing is the addition of the
> > generic XML description file already discussed here.
>
> I am extremely wary of including this in the spec (and even more wary of
> implementing it!), for two reasons: first, it feels overengineered,
The way I see it is that it is as simple as possible (for what it does), but
no simpler.
> and
> second, we have already established that it is possible to write XML-RPC
> proxies for this kind of stuff instead.
It's possible, yes, but I don't like proxies much more than centralised
servers. It adds complexity that can't be simply programmed away. Which
proxy? What if it breaks? What if it silently drops half my
notifications? What if a bug sends me the wrong information? What if you
decide to shut it down? What if... all sorts of things that you don't have
control over because it's not your server and it isn't guaranteed to work
in any particular way (as opposed to servers that have to follow the spec).
I see it as merely shifting the programming work from the blogging tools to
the proxy tools, and incurring the penalty of a third party in the process.
I honestly don't see this spec as being that complex, particularly because
you can implement the bare minimum, and come back to add more methods
later.
Remember, 99% of people won't be programming this stuff, they'll just be
using off-the-shelf blogging tools.
I think that servers automatically talking to each other and establishing
links is an interesting concept, but it breaks when you have to hard code a
third party in to do the talking if you want something slightly different
from normal.
[snip]
> > By the way, I was unaware that <link> could also be specified as an
> > HTTP header. Does anybody have a link to more information? Is it
> > really that hard to parse?
>
> Check the old HTTP specs. It's been removed in more recent releases, due
> to lack of UA support. (Mozilla supports it now.)
[snip]
Thanks for the pointer.
- --
Jim Dabell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9e9eL3tJNldoQhi8RAi8tAJ9C6OnXzwiIOk9na4TZnCxNU8TA+gCgv8EA
NP0/Qd98pmH3SqSzQesXYO8=
=S4M4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 - 22:05:00 BST