[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5

[Sam Ruby]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
>>> The pingback specification does exactly what the trackback 
>>> specification does, but without relying on RDF blocks in comments or 
>>> anything silly like that. It just uses the Microformats approach, and 
>>> is far easier to use, and doesn't require any additional bits to add 
>>> to HTML.
>> [offtopic]
>> I'd never heard of pingback. I googled for it and found your website 
>> first, but couldn't find the RFC number.  You have a copyright of 2002, 
>> and it appears that Trackback was also developed in 2002. So are you 
>> implying they should have used Pingback instead?  It appears they were 
>> developed in parallel?
> 
> They were made around the same time (Trackback was invented first). My 
> point was just that Trackback is not a good example of why you need more 
> attributes in HTML, since there are equivalent technologies that do it 
> with existing markup and no loss of detail.

I disagree.  The pingback specification does NOT do exactly what the 
trackback specification does.

Pingback discovery works for any media type, does not deal with any 
granularity smaller than a URL.

Trackback discovery is limited to (X)HTML, but can deal with multiple 
entries on a single page.  Here's an example:

   http://scott.userland.com/2005/11/09.html

- Sam Ruby