- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:30:30 -0500
Ian Hickson wrote: > >>> The pingback specification does exactly what the trackback >>> specification does, but without relying on RDF blocks in comments or >>> anything silly like that. It just uses the Microformats approach, and >>> is far easier to use, and doesn't require any additional bits to add >>> to HTML. >> [offtopic] >> I'd never heard of pingback. I googled for it and found your website >> first, but couldn't find the RFC number. You have a copyright of 2002, >> and it appears that Trackback was also developed in 2002. So are you >> implying they should have used Pingback instead? It appears they were >> developed in parallel? > > They were made around the same time (Trackback was invented first). My > point was just that Trackback is not a good example of why you need more > attributes in HTML, since there are equivalent technologies that do it > with existing markup and no loss of detail. I disagree. The pingback specification does NOT do exactly what the trackback specification does. Pingback discovery works for any media type, does not deal with any granularity smaller than a URL. Trackback discovery is limited to (X)HTML, but can deal with multiple entries on a single page. Here's an example: http://scott.userland.com/2005/11/09.html - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 18:30:30 UTC