From: Ian Hickson (ian@hixie.ch)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 11:38:18 BST
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Simon Willison wrote:
>
> My point is that I can check for the X-Pingback header AND the <link>
> element in a single request.
Right. My implementations do this too -- they make a GET request, parse
all the headers per HTTP, check to see if X-Pingback was in there, and if
so take the first one, otherwise, do the regexp search of the input
(currently all in one go) and if that fails then give up.
In fact adding HTTP header support to my blog took just one line of code.
(It took more code in the server to send out the X-Pingback header than it
did in the client to handle it!)
I still don't really understand what the problem with X-Pingback is.
> Also remember that X-Pingback support is optional.
Um, well, the spec isn't quite that lenient at the moment. It says you
must support X-Pingback unless you can't (e.g. you're a bookmarklet).
And documents don't _have_ to include both, per the spec.
(I don't think it is reasonable to ask documents to have to include both,
by the way, because while I can add X-Pingback to all the documents on all
my sites with exactly one line in a .htaccess file, as I have done, it
would require me to change all my hundreds if not thousands of HTML and
XHTML files by hand if I had to add <link> elements too.)
-- 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 : Wed Sep 11 2002 - 12:05:01 BST