From: Stuart Langridge (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 04:25:44 BST
mort spoo'd forth:
> Like i said before, i think the use of "levels" or "flavors" of the
> pingback spec could be useful.
> The current spec could be level 0 and every pingback implementation must
> comply with it. A more advanced and complex spec could be level 1, and
> must comply with its spec *and* with the level 0 spec. Same for level
> 2,etc... Just like an onion :)
> What would be the disadvantages of this approach?
It's RSS, or CSS, or the DOM, is what's the problem with it ;-)
I applaud this sort of thing in general. However, it makes it a real
pain to work out what something *does*, I think. Imagine that we had
our current <link> tag (pointing directly to an XML-RPC server) as
level 0. We'd then have to invent a different link tag for Pingback 1,
which points to an XML-RPC file (<link rel="pingback1.0"
href="locationOfXMLFile.xml">), and pages woudl have to list *both*
tags (otherwise you'd not be pingbackable by clients only supporting
level 0). This to me seems like proliferation hell :)
-- "I'm a pepper drink, I'm a vodka drink I run when I see Aq :)" -- Sarabian, afe 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 - 21:05:01 BST