Preventing comment spam
It’s nice to see that Google is aware of and doing something about comment spam. I’m definitely upgrading my WordPress installation as soon as this is implemented.
It’s nice to see that Google is aware of and doing something about comment spam. I’m definitely upgrading my WordPress installation as soon as this is implemented.
Wow, one day she refuses to even stand, the next she’s toddling everywhere! She cant make it across the room without tipping over but she’s getting there She even showed off by walking all around when I took her to the after hours clinic after a rather nasty hit to the head resulting in a nasty looking dent (that was monday with the hit, visit yesterday - today she’s fine).
One thing which consistently confuses me is the the fact the rdf:about and rdf:resource follow the usual rules for resolving relative URIs, but rdf:ID does not.
Specifically, as Ed Davies points out in his comment to Refactoring to RDF, step 1, a relative rdf:ID is always interpreted as an anchor within the current document.
This means that within the document “http://example.org/orders”:
“http://example.org/customer#12″, being an absolute URI, is handled identically by rdf:ID, rdf:about, and rdf:resource.
The relative URI “customer#12″ is interpreted as “http://example.org/customer#12″ by rdf:about and rdf:resource, but as “http://example.org/orders#customer#12″ by rdf:ID.
This difference in interpretation of relative URIs extends to cases where xml:base is specified.
The best bet for me, personally, is to either always use rdf:about or to always use absolute URIs.
I’ve added some stronger comment spam tools, and optimistically re-enabled comments. Have fun.
Powered by WordPress