W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Micropayments and principle 4 (retrieval is safe)

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:47:25 -0400
Message-ID: <019a01c25991$63998290$af363418@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <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

Jonathan

>
> +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 09:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT