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: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:35:01 +0100
Message-ID: <492EA205.8030901@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Well, that's why you're the guy doing this and not me. :-)
> 
> Let me know when I can update the spec to refer to the new method.
> 
> Thanks for the help,

Hi,

I personally think the text is good enough as a starting proposal. I 
would recommend to put it into something reasonably self-contained, such 
as a separate doc, an appendix or a subsection (preference in this order).

That being said, my experience with even mentioning new methods is that 
there'll be tons of people opposed to it; I personally would prefer to 
stick to GET/HEAD, but I do think a custom method will be better than POST.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 13:35:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:59 UTC