W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2006

[whatwg] <a href="" ping="">

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:23:16 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0601112021310.2856@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, dolphinling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Like I said before, I like the semantics of ping=. But it doesn't 
> > > > fit into the usage model that advertisers and other trackers want. 
> > > > Semantically, I want notification and linking to be separate. In 
> > > > usage, they want them to be linked. They seem to me to be mutually 
> > > > exclusive.
> > > 
> > > In my experience, "they" are ok with it being separate, as it 
> > > conveys a number of benefits to the user. (I would consider my 
> > > source on this matter reasonably authoritative.)
> > 
> > Hmm... perhaps your source could explain his reasoning here? :) It's 
> > extremely easy to make non-circumventable tracking, and I assumed that 
> > most times it _was_ circumventable were due to ignorance rather than 
> > an informed decision. To me, it seems, the benefits to an advertising 
> > company of doing so outweigh the benefits of not.
> 
> I'd still like to hear this reasoning for this :)

I replied to your e-mail back in October:

   http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2005-October/004942.html

The reasoning is that any advertising company that wants to increase its 
business on the long term needs to make the users at least as happy as the 
advertisers.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 12:23:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:25 UTC