From: Jim Dabell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 21:33:00 BST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 09 September 2002 3:25 am, Stuart Langridge wrote:
> 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 :)
Hence the one level of indirection. If you put it in in the beginning, then
this sort of thing doesn't arise.
-----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