12224 2011-03-02 19:58:02 +0000 Drop rel=pingback. The Pingback spec seems dead and unused, and redundant with the Referer header. 2011-09-04 17:45:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#link-type-pingback WGDecision P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ayg eoconnor ian julian.reschke mike Ms2ger philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 46193 0 contributor 2011-03-02 19:58:02 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/links.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#link-type-pingback Comment: Drop rel=pingback. The Pingback spec seems dead and unused, and redundant with the Referer header. Posted from: 85.227.154.141 User agent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01 46197 1 julian.reschke 2011-03-02 20:12:38 +0000 Agreed to drop it (not necessarily because it's bad or not much used, but because it doesn't need to be defined in HTML). 46199 2 philipj 2011-03-02 21:42:33 +0000 Would that make <link rel=pingback> invalid? That would be unforunate, because it's actually used by WordPress: <link rel="pingback" href="http://blog.foolip.org/xmlrpc.php" /> I haven't looked into it, but I assume that when you publish a blog post, WordPress fetches all linked pages and looks for <link rel=pingback> in order to make that magic work. 48199 3 ian 2011-05-06 19:30:59 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: pingback is used by blogging software all over the place. 48211 4 julian.reschke 2011-05-06 19:46:04 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > Status: Rejected > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: pingback is used by blogging software all over the place. Yes. So? HTML5 doesn't define pingback, it just references the definition at http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback Isn't this what we have a registry for? Why repeat it in the HTML spec? 48229 5 ian 2011-05-06 20:14:46 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Any term that is well-established and used should go in the spec. IMHO, we should to a state where the registry is just used to avoid name clashes in development, and once a feature is proved we should move it to the spec. I haven't set that up yet, but that's where I'm headed. 48234 6 julian.reschke 2011-05-06 20:20:45 +0000 Sorry, but I don't believe that's what the WG decided to do; in particular as the W3C HTML spec can't be continuously updated at the rate new relations would need it. 48237 7 ian 2011-05-06 20:25:11 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Sure it can. That's what "continuous maintenance" means. It's not like we're going to stop working on HTML again. 48343 8 rubys 2011-05-09 01:09:30 +0000 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/165 48362 9 eoconnor 2011-05-09 16:55:32 +0000 For the record, as one of the main proponents of using the Microformats wiki's existing-rel-values page for our registry of rel values: I'm perfectly happy with Ian's plan to integrate proved values into the spec, and I don't believe that his doing so contradicts the ISSUE-27 decision. 50183 10 julian.reschke 2011-06-23 18:52:09 +0000 *** Bug 13031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 53723 11 mike 2011-08-04 05:16:43 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55899 12 rubys 2011-08-26 19:39:21 +0000 WG Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Aug/0412.html Change Proposal adopted by Amicable Consensus: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jul/0124.html 56294 13 contributor 2011-09-04 17:45:47 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6534. Check-in comment: Move rel=pingback registration from spec to wiki. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6533&to=6534