- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:23:35 +0200
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, www-tag@w3.org
+1 as well to Mark and to the additional example. Jean-Jacques. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > If we can't distinguish an access that incurs obligations from one that > does not, I fear that no access can be viewed as completely safe. So, +1 > to what Mark has written. > > > Mark Baker wrote: > >>Tim Bray wrote: >> >>Why not? This is my reading. I do *not* want to make payments, even >>micropayments, as a result of doing a GET, without have done an explicit >>prior authorization. > > And even then ... > > I don't want to be charged per GET, period. If I'm going to be charged > per-page, it better be via POST, because I may be using a personal proxy > that does things like invoking GETs on my behalf to keep my cache fresh. > > I think #4 is fine as is, but perhaps an additional example to cover > the pay-per-page case would be worthwhile? > > MB
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 05:23:34 UTC