From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 21:31:03 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 09 September 2002 2:57 am, Stuart Langridge wrote:
> See, we're not talking about Pingback here, I don't think. Instead,
> we're talking about services layered on top of Pingback. Doing this is
> like, say, XML-RPC itself is; it's a service on top of HTTP. It's not
> defined in the HTTP spec; instead, they took a simple already-existing
> protocol and used it as part of a more complex protocol.
The distinction I am making is that xml-rpc is one of a number of possible
transport layers, that the Pingback service rides on top of. It's more or
less what you are saying, but flipped upside down.
> If someone
> wanted to add that kind of service themselves, great! If lots of people
> are going to add it, perhaps it should be specced as
> PingbackQuerystring or something, but I don't think it should be part
> of the base PB specification.
Perhaps it shouldn't be a part of the base spec, but I do think that there
should be _some_ way of specifying the transport layer, instead of limiting
it to xml-rpc. Perhaps just make a suffix to the rel attribute the type
specifier (i.e. you could have <link rel="pingback-xml-rpc">, <link
rel="pingback-http-get">, and so on.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message sent over the Blogite mailing list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 09 2002 - 23:05:01 BST