From: Stuart Langridge (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 04:31:02 BST
Ian Hickson spoo'd forth:
> Question. Should X-Pingback processing be optional, or should all clients
> look for that HTTP header?
> If we make it optional, then we have the problem that some clients would
> use the <link> element, and some would use the HTTP header. That would be
> bad. Comments?
I don't necessarily see that it is bad. Either the link tag and the
header agree, in which case we have no problem, or they do not agree,
in which case one of them is a lie. It's not the pinger's
responsibility to check whether the remote site is lying or not ;-)
-- A man, a plan, a canoe, pasta, heros, rajahs, a coloratura, maps, snipe, percale, macaroni, a gag, a banana bag, a tan, a tag, a banana bag again (or a camel), a crepe, pins, Spam, a rut, a Rolo, cash, a jar, sore hats, a peon, a canal -- Panama! 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 - 05:05:00 BST