{ "attachments": [], "comments_archived": true, "date": "2002-09-28T20:29:13.000Z", "layout": "post", "title": "Pingback and embedded metadata in (X)HTML", "wordpress_id": 275, "wordpress_slug": "ooocoo", "wordpress_url": "http://www.decafbad.com/blog/?p=275", "year": "2002", "month": "09", "day": "28", "isDir": false, "slug": "ooocoo", "type": "entry", "postName": "2002-09-28-ooocoo", "html": "

More on Pingback vs TrackBack on Hixie's Natural Log.

\n

How embarassing - he points to my referrers as a typical list. :) Mine are crap. Look at how Mark Pilgrim handles referrers. Yesterday I was working at making my referrer tracking harvest titles, clean out false links, and collapse redundant backlinks, but I'm far from perfecting that. But, at the same time, I agree: Referrers are not enough. They're one source, the most noise-ridden but the most effortless on the part of the outside contributor. But you can only do so much with almost nothing. :)

\n

I think, when it comes down to it, my only issue with Pingback is not a Pingback-specific issue at all: How to harvest machine readable metadata from a web resource. This applies to my referrer links, Pingback, and TrackBack alike. TrackBack has a bit of a solution, with embedded RDF, but that's got its own issues. Ian suggests a few things to me in comments, such as harvesting the title from the HTML title tag (a no brainer), and then harvesting further data from DublinCore-based data in meta tags in the page. I've seen this last convention only once before, in the geographical data consumed by Syndic8.com.

\n

Is this a pretty common convention? I've not seen it done much, but the I obviously have not seen everything or a large chunk of anything. :) If this is a known convention, it makes me happy and I think it would answer a question I asked back in May.

\n

Update: Duh. Yes, it's a known convention. It's even got an RFC: RFC2731: Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML Simple Google search. Sometimes I can be so daft. :) Now I just have to start using this more - and I wonder why more people aren't using it? Most likely because there's been not much in it for them.

\n\n\n\n

shortname=ooocoo

\n", "body": "More on Pingback vs TrackBack on Hixie's Natural Log.\r\n

\r\nHow embarassing - he points to my referrers as a typical list. :) Mine are crap. Look at how Mark Pilgrim handles referrers. Yesterday I was working at making my referrer tracking harvest titles, clean out false links, and collapse redundant backlinks, but I'm far from perfecting that. But, at the same time, I agree: Referrers are not enough. They're one source, the most noise-ridden but the most effortless on the part of the outside contributor. But you can only do so much with almost nothing. :)\r\n

\r\nI think, when it comes down to it, my only issue with Pingback is not a Pingback-specific issue at all: How to harvest machine readable metadata from a web resource. This applies to my referrer links, Pingback, and TrackBack alike. TrackBack has a bit of a solution, with embedded RDF, but that's got its own issues. Ian suggests a few things to me in comments, such as harvesting the title from the HTML title tag (a no brainer), and then harvesting further data from DublinCore-based data in meta tags in the page. I've seen this last convention only once before, in the geographical data consumed by Syndic8.com.\r\n

\r\nIs this a pretty common convention? I've not seen it done much, but the I obviously have not seen everything or a large chunk of anything. :) If this is a known convention, it makes me happy and I think it would answer a question I asked back in May.\r\n

\r\nUpdate: Duh. Yes, it's a known convention. It's even got an RFC: RFC2731: Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML Simple Google search. Sometimes I can be so daft. :) Now I just have to start using this more - and I wonder why more people aren't using it? Most likely because there's been not much in it for them.\r\n\r\nshortname=ooocoo\r\n", "parentPath": "./content/posts/archives/2002", "path": "2002/09/28/ooocoo", "summary": "More on Pingback vs TrackBack on Hixie's Natural Log.\nHow embarassing - he points to my referrers as a typical list. :) Mine are crap. Look at how Mark Pilgrim handles referrers. Yesterday I was working at making my referrer tracking harvest titles, clean out false links, and collapse redundant backlinks, but I'm far from perfecting that. But, at the same time, I agree: Referrers are not enough. They're one source, the most noise-ridden but the most effortless on the part of the outside contributor. But you can only do so much with almost nothing. :)\nI think, when it comes down to it, my only issue with Pingback is not a Pingback-specific issue at all: How to harvest machine readable metadata from a web resource. This applies to my referrer links, Pingback, and TrackBack alike. TrackBack has a bit of a solution, with embedded RDF, but that's got its own issues. Ian suggests a few things to me in comments, such as harvesting the title from the HTML title tag (a no brainer), and then harvesting further data from DublinCore-based data in meta tags in the page. I've seen this last convention only once before, in the geographical data consumed by Syndic8.com.\nIs this a pretty common convention? I've not seen it done much, but the I obviously have not seen everything or a large chunk of anything. :) If this is a known convention, it makes me happy and I think it would answer a question I asked back in May.\nUpdate: Duh. Yes, it's a known convention. It's even got an RFC: RFC2731: Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML Simple Google search. Sometimes I can be so daft. :) Now I just have to start using this more - and I wonder why more people aren't using it? Most likely because there's been not much in it for them.", "needsBuild": true, "prevPostPath": "2002/09/28/ooobii", "prevPostTitle": "On RSS and Namespaces", "nextPostPath": "2002/10/02/ooocoa", "nextPostTitle": "Dangerous BlogWalking" }