W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: a/@ping discussion (ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-2), was: An HTML language specification vs. a browser specification

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:28:03 +0100
Message-ID: <492BC523.80709@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> Revised as requested (not sure I used the right terminology, so feel free 
> to fix it up as needed):
> 
> The AUDITNAV method is used to report a page navigation. The Request-URI 
> represents a link auditing processor. The source and target of the page 
> navigation are reported using the Ping-From and Ping-To methods. If the 

s/methods/headers/

> Content-Type header is omitted, the body must be empty. The entity body, 

Nope. That's something which is not required in HTTP.

> if present, must be used to include further information regarding the page 
> navigation, using the rules defined for the entity's Content-Type.
> 
> The server's response must have an entity body (though it may be empty). 
> The client is expected to ignore the entity body in the response, but it 
> may be used for debugging purposes.
> 
> Responses to this method are not cacheable.
> 
> This method is safe (the user will not be held accountable for the 
> request) but not idempotent (each request causes new side-effects, so the 
> request should not be replayed).


BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 09:28:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT