Comments on: Trackback vs MetaWeblog API http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/ WordPress, web development, and world domination. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:29:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4-alpha-19719 By: Pizza Review http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-42654 Pizza Review Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:19:48 +0000 //?p=#comment-42654 <strong>Pizza Review Blog...</strong> Pizza Review... Pizza Review Blog…

Pizza Review…

]]> By: Dougal http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-76 Dougal Tue, 07 Jan 2003 18:15:30 +0000 //?p=#comment-76 <p> I'd certainly be happy with a client-based solution, as well. w.Bloggar already has native support for pinging weblogs.com, so Pingback and such probably wouldn't be that much more to add. </p> I’d certainly be happy with a client-based solution, as well. w.Bloggar already has native support for pinging weblogs.com, so Pingback and such probably wouldn’t be that much more to add.

]]> By: Reverend Jim http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-74 Reverend Jim Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:50:51 +0000 //?p=#comment-74 This is a good idea. However, I'd like to see the blogging applications (w.bloggar and the like) support trackback/pingback natively. This can be done so many different ways, all of which are fine with me. The client can visit the links in the post looking for TrackBack auto-discovery and pinging them (or asking the user if it should do so) as needed. Additionally, a trackback field in the client could handle this for those that don't support auto-discovery. I agree with you, however, that the metaweblogAPI should not be changed to support this. It just doesn't fit. This is a good idea. However, I’d like to see the blogging applications (w.bloggar and the like) support trackback/pingback natively. This can be done so many different ways, all of which are fine with me. The client can visit the links in the post looking for TrackBack auto-discovery and pinging them (or asking the user if it should do so) as needed. Additionally, a trackback field in the client could handle this for those that don’t support auto-discovery. I agree with you, however, that the metaweblogAPI should not be changed to support this. It just doesn’t fit.

]]> By: MikeA http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-70 MikeA Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:36:45 +0000 //?p=#comment-70 just thought that, if you wanted to do it in a way that would encourage others to also implement the same kind of feature, that using a more unique pattern for the comment wrapper would make it easier for other tools to deal with the item. If the idea is really just a way to make your own back end work, then it doesn't matter at all. just thought that, if you wanted to do it in a way that would encourage others to also implement the same kind of feature, that using a more unique pattern for the comment wrapper would make it easier for other tools to deal with the item. If the idea is really just a way to make your own back end work, then it doesn’t matter at all.

]]> By: MikeA http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-69 MikeA Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:36:41 +0000 //?p=#comment-69 just thought that, if you wanted to do it in a way that would encourage others to also implement the same kind of feature, that using a more unique pattern for the comment wrapper would make it easier for other tools to deal with the item. If the idea is really just a way to make your own back end work, then it doesn't matter at all. just thought that, if you wanted to do it in a way that would encourage others to also implement the same kind of feature, that using a more unique pattern for the comment wrapper would make it easier for other tools to deal with the item. If the idea is really just a way to make your own back end work, then it doesn’t matter at all.

]]> By: Dougal http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-68 Dougal Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:58:45 +0000 //?p=#comment-68 <p> Yes, the comment just gives me a way to supply the Trackback URL, since the client program doesn't have a dedicated way to enter it. </p> <p> Why would I need to change the format? As it is, I never include any HTML comments in a post for any other purposes. And the format I'm currently using is very specific, so it's unlikely that I'd forget and trigger it accidentally. </p> Yes, the comment just gives me a way to supply the Trackback URL, since the client program doesn’t have a dedicated way to enter it.

Why would I need to change the format? As it is, I never include any HTML comments in a post for any other purposes. And the format I’m currently using is very specific, so it’s unlikely that I’d forget and trigger it accidentally.

]]> By: MikeA http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-67 MikeA Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:45:34 +0000 //?p=#comment-67 So your comment entry is a way to instruct your server API to compose a valid message to ping the URL in the comment, right? how about changing the comment format slightly to set it apart from any other comments that might look like a trackback? something like <!--%%trackBackUrl="..."--> So your comment entry is a way to instruct your server API to compose a valid message to ping the URL in the comment, right?

how about changing the comment format slightly to set it apart from any other comments that might look like a trackback?

something like <!–%%trackBackUrl=”…”–>

]]> By: Dougal http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-66 Dougal Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:26:49 +0000 //?p=#comment-66 <p> When I post via the MetaWeblog API, all of that information is available. The client program sends the post's title and content. When the post is saved into the database, the post's ID is returned, and I can build the permalink from that. So I've got all of the essential info to send in the Trackback ping. </p> When I post via the MetaWeblog API, all of that information is available. The client program sends the post’s title and content. When the post is saved into the database, the post’s ID is returned, and I can build the permalink from that. So I’ve got all of the essential info to send in the Trackback ping.

]]> By: MikeA http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-65 MikeA Fri, 03 Jan 2003 15:16:34 +0000 //?p=#comment-65 I assume you are setting up a way to ping the site to which your blog entry refers. If so, you probably also want to send other cool info in the ping like the URL of your entry (this is required, right?), the title of your post, and excerpt of the post, and the title of your blog. How are you doing this now? does your internal API grep this info from your post and then pass it with the ping? I assume you are setting up a way to ping the site to which your blog entry refers. If so, you probably also want to send other cool info in the ping like the URL of your entry (this is required, right?), the title of your post, and excerpt of the post, and the title of your blog. How are you doing this now? does your internal API grep this info from your post and then pass it with the ping?

]]> By: Dougal http://dougal.gunters.org/blog/2003/01/02/trackback-vs-metaweblog-api/#comment-64 Dougal Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:03:28 +0000 //?p=#comment-64 <p> I haven't implemented Trackback autodiscovery, yet. So I was looking for an interim solution that would be nice and generic. </p> <p> I'm working on Pingback support now, and since it uses autodiscovery as a core part of the spec, I should be able to carry over some of what I learn there back into my Trackback code. </p> I haven’t implemented Trackback autodiscovery, yet. So I was looking for an interim solution that would be nice and generic.

I’m working on Pingback support now, and since it uses autodiscovery as a core part of the spec, I should be able to carry over some of what I learn there back into my Trackback code.

]]>