* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 02:55]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > >Hmm. That’s a nice thought that hadn’t occured to me. Thinking > >about it, that would offer a way to solve a lot of the mess > >that currently plagues the Trackback/Pingback mechanisms. You > >could just ping the target weblog with a pointer to the feed > >which contains the entry you wrote in response to someone > >else’s post. > > Yep tho I really don't want to bring trackback/pingback into > this discussion ;-)
I understand the sentiment. :-) It was idle musing at this point. > This mechanism would make it easier to connect conversations on > the client without necessarily worrying about server > infrastructure for trackbacks, pings, etc. Obviously that’s the primary purpose. I simply noticed that assuming that the mechanism is in place, it then becomes be an obvious way to address pings that neatly avoids the nasty mess in current protocols. But this is something to deal with in the relatively far future, not now. > @rel="related-feed" ??? A bit more specific than "related", > the nature of the relation is left unspecified. User agents > can choose to handle in whatever way they wish. That doesn’t seem to confer more meaning than you can already express by [EMAIL PROTECTED]'related' and @type='application/atom+xml']. I think what we want to say is that “aggregators consuming this feed should consider automatically subscribing to the referenced feed as well,” which is a much tighter relationship than the loose “related.” Maybe “companion?” I don’t know if I like that term, but it’s the best single-word description I can think of off the top of my head. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
