|Story Henry||Apr 14, 2010 2:00 am|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 15, 2010 12:41 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 15, 2010 2:09 am|
|tyler gillies||Apr 15, 2010 2:17 am|
|tyler gillies||Apr 15, 2010 2:19 am|
|Mischa Tuffield||Apr 15, 2010 4:05 am|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 15, 2010 7:13 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Apr 15, 2010 7:20 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Apr 15, 2010 7:27 am|
|Jiří Procházka||Apr 15, 2010 7:41 am|
|Peter Williams||Apr 15, 2010 9:41 am|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 15, 2010 10:38 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Apr 15, 2010 11:13 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 15, 2010 11:22 am|
|Peter Williams||Apr 15, 2010 11:54 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 15, 2010 11:55 am|
|Kingsley Idehen||Apr 15, 2010 12:05 pm|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 16, 2010 4:28 am|
|Nathan||Apr 16, 2010 5:12 am|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 16, 2010 6:33 am|
|Nathan||Apr 16, 2010 6:44 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 7:09 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 7:40 am|
|Toby Inkster||Apr 16, 2010 8:58 am|
|Danny Ayers||Apr 16, 2010 9:26 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 11:42 am|
|Mischa Tuffield||Apr 16, 2010 12:10 pm|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 12:14 pm|
|Kingsley Idehen||Apr 16, 2010 12:29 pm|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 12:58 pm|
|Nathan||Apr 16, 2010 1:02 pm|
|Story Henry||Apr 16, 2010 1:16 pm|
|Nathan||Apr 16, 2010 1:33 pm|
|Sebastian Tramp||Apr 17, 2010 2:38 am|
|Story Henry||Apr 17, 2010 5:27 am|
|Subject:||Re: [foaf-protocols] fp:ping|
|From:||Kingsley Idehen (kide...@openlinksw.com)|
|Date:||Apr 15, 2010 12:05:21 pm|
Story Henry wrote:
On 15 Apr 2010, at 15:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:09:46 +0100 Story Henry <henr...@bblfish.net> wrote:
It seems unnecessarily complex. It uses RPC, when a simple HTML FORM can do. Why? RPC was cool 8 years ago because it used XML! Wow! The continuation of this lead to the SOAP bubble, which seems to have vanished in the past year somehow.
You get the benefit of compatibility with the large installed base that Pingback has, and you get to reuse existing Pingback libraries and testing tools.
I think SPAM killed pingback uptake a long time ago. I really don't believe its
widely used these day.
I think it is quite widely used by bloggers to notify google and other search
engines or aggregators when they post a new update... I can certainly see that if you
automatically accept all pings, then you open yourself up to spam. The pings need to be
Anyway, here is the spec
So having read it again I think it has a lot of good things:
- the X-Pingback header is a good for photos, that cannot contain links - the link relation in the html
I think the only thing I am really against is the use of the xml/rpc.
Yes, get rid of the xmlrpc for sure, and then inject #webids into the mix, and the system is fixed in a big way.
Perhaps I can
convince the semantic ping back people to enhance the ping back service to
enable application/x-www-form-urlencoded results.
Yes, Soren and co. won't have problem tweaking the spec, they are FOAF+SSL implementor re. OntoWiki etc..
I think that with that, and allowing that the ping back service be foaf+ssl enabled, one could get something interesting.
Understatement of the century!! :-)
In a sense, a FOAF+SSL enhanced pingback mechanism is what we could use to
achieve the following:
1. Yet another FOAF+SSL utility showcase 2. Resurrect a potential viral system that is current quite dormant.
Yes, the clever thing about this restful ping mechanism is that - apart from
being so simple that it feels like some people may die of a heart attack hearing of it
- is that we can know the identity of the pinger, by placing the form behind a
foaf+ssl access control layer. I don't think this completely deals with SPAM - you can't deal
with SPAM if you want to be open to novel interactions, but it does
It reduces SPAM immensely. Policies will basically handle the rest.
This plus WebFinger will accelerate our journey towards FOAF+SSL usage critical mass based on fixing broken Web 2.0 items :-)
Ok, I'll rewrite my suggestion to the pingback people and the linkeddata list.
_______________________________________________ foaf-protocols mailing list foaf...@lists.foaf-project.org http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols