From: Ian Hickson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 10 2002 - 21:33:50 BST
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Simon Willison wrote:
> pingback.extensions.getPingbacks(url) - returns an array of URLs that link
> to the specified url
I like it. I think we don't need the .extensions bit, we just need to only
specify it in level two of the spec.
However, that can wait a bit.
Do we have any objections to the pingback spec as it stands? I've heard
objections against X-Pingback, but I'm not convinced that we should assume
blogs will only ever be HTML-based, and the X-Pingback header allows for a
good optimisation. I've heard a reason why we don't need X-Pingback, but
not a reason why we should _avoid_ X-Pingback. The only other objection is
that we should make it more generic, but there does not seem to be that
much support for that idea.
Here is the current version of the spec:
The only difference (beyond fixing typos) from the last version is the
addition of a fault code that I needed for my proxies (0x0032).
If there are no objections to this, I'll call it 1.0.
-- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' 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 : Tue Sep 10 2002 - 23:05:00 BST