From: Aquarion (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 10:54:16 BST
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:23:17PM +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Not that it matters, since you've already released the spec, so any
> > argument against it is effectivly null and void.
> Absolutely not -- it's a working draft right now, so if a strong case
> against using X-Pingback for blogs comes up (I don't consider "it could be
> used for other things as well" to be a strong case, sorry) then with
> consensus on this list I would definitely remove it.
My point is that I don't belive X-Pingback adds anything worth adding to
the spec, because it's the same information that could be in either of
two places. At most, it saves about 10 iterations though a loop, and
doubles the size of the code to parse the information.
Right. I'm getting bored with this now. If anyone agrees with anything
I'm saying, say so now, or else I'll shut up and remain unhappy with it.
-- Aq 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 : Thu Sep 12 2002 - 12:05:00 BST