On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Martin Thomson <m...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:25 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: >> W3C Editor's draft: https://webmention.net/draft/ > > Wow, that is an extraordinarily wordy document for something that does > so little.
It was a lot shorter at the IndieWebCamp community. Extraordinary wordiness is often the consequence of taking something to W3C, and having lots of issues filed that seem to need explicit answers in the spec to various criticisms. Some of these are often helpful! > It's the first I've heard of this, but it's remarkably > similar to (albeit much narrower than): > > https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Methods/Link.html > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pritchard-http-links-00 > and recently: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-link-method-12 Here's the explanation of "Why not HTTP LINK": https://indieweb.org/Webmention-brainstorming#Alternatives Including that in the spec would of course make it wordier still, though it's reasonable to include it in the FAQ. https://indieweb.org/Webmention-faq#Why_webmention_instead_of_pingback No one has reasonably* asked for using HTTP LINK instead. *AFAIK no one actually implements and deploys HTTP LINK - it was a brainstorm that was never incubated with real implementations and remains theoretical. Do you know of any implementations, deployments, actual real world uses of HTTP LINK? > I wouldn't bother saying anything, though, it's just yet another > specification. Webmention is deployed and live on tens of thousands of Known and WordPress sites, and many more smaller deployments of other implementations. Tantek _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
