From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 21:32:18 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 08 September 2002 10:05 pm, Aquarion wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:29:31PM +0000, Jim Dabell wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On Saturday 07 September 2002 5:44 pm, Aquarion wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 06:06:01PM +0100, Simon Willison wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > I've got a solution. Unfortunately it uses XML namespaces - is this
> > > > a big problem?
> > >
> > > My main problem with it would be that it appears to change the
> > > implementation of pingback from one single <link> to a forty page XML
> > > file, with excess detail on everything.
> > A bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? :)
> No, I don't. I'm opposed to the idea of multiple methodologies for this
> anyway, and even more opposed to the idea of having to parse three
> differant documents in order do do another weblog what is, basically, a
> favour. Every other protocal you /have/ to impliment in order for a
> client to work in the Real World makes it less likely that a given
> developer will bother with it.
The linking html, the xml file... what's the third document?
> > > The whole point of the original
> > > spec was that all the client had to do was send off a single RPC-XML
> > > request saying it was linked to. This is quick, this is efficent,
> > > this is /easy/.
> > It's also non-extendable. Doing the exact same thing, except grabbing
> > the xml file to get the location of the rpc file is not that much
> > different (assuming no namespaces).
> Er, yes it is. As I mentioned, now I have to grab andparse the headers,
> possibly the document as well,
Well you get the headers "for free", they are an optional part of the spec
(so there's no "have to"), and you were parsing the html document anyway!
> and grab and parse the resulting file
> until I even know what server I'm connecting to.
This bit is the difference. I don't see it as being particularly onerous,
but if you do, then you can simply not implement the generic bit.
> > > XML-RPC is a nice standard, it's an /easy/ standard, and it was
> > > /designed/ for things like this. It also needs more people to know it
> > > exists. The fact that you *could* use alternatives is valid, but then
> > > again you *could* use Trackback, and the whole point of this was that
> > > Trackback was an overengineered solution to a fairly simple problem.
> > XML-RPC isn't as easy to implement (imho) as grabbing an email address
> > out of an xml file and firing off an email saying "Hey! I've linked to
> > you!".
> Please tell me you're joking? Implementing anything that sends off
> emails automatically is dangerous.
Okay, I didn't consider the malicious angle, but surely this isn't much of a
-----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 - 22:05:00 BST