Re: Brainstorming about resources states and al.

["John Panzer" <"JPanzer"@aol.net>]

Thomas Broyer wrote on 6/1/2005, 3:10 PM:

 >
 > ...
 >
 > Sending trackback/pingback
 > ------------------------------
 >
 > Trackbacked/pingbacked URIs are not really metadata about an entry but
 > rather a message sent by the client to the server to instruct it to do
 > some RPC stuff with the specified URIs; the server should ideally also
 > be able to instruct the client which URIs have already been
 > trackbacked/pingbacked while previously editing the entry.
 > I think that the way PacePubHeaders [4] dealt with that was pretty good
 > (except Allow-Annotation and Allow-Remote-Annotation are actually
 > properties of the entry; ...except if we want to allow
 > trackback/pingback on any kind of resource, not only entries). To answer
 > David Czarnecki's matter [5], we could define the Annotate header as
 > "Annotate: <type>; <URI>" instead of just "Annotate: <URI>", with <type>
 > being either "pingback", "trackback" or "discover" (if you want the
 > server to sniff the remote resource) and defaulting to "discover" if it
 > is an unrecognized value (this allows for later new values and it seems
 > to be the way things are done in IETF RFCs).
 >

This was really confusing to me at first, because I was thinking in 
terms of one server and one client.  I think here you're referring to 
one client posting or editing on server A and either the server or the 
client performing a trackback ping to server B to tell it about the 
existence of a link from A to B.  Right?

 >
 > [1] http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PacePubStatusResource
 > [2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.txt
 > [3] http://inessential.com/2004/11/18.php
 > [4] http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PacePubHeaders
 > [5] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00463.html
 >
 > --
 > Thomas Broyer
 >
 >

-- 
John Panzer
Sr. Technical Manager, AOL
http://journals.aol.com/panzerjohn/abstractioneer