W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 1999

Re: Static? Dynamic?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 02:29:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3779C76E.D1378A18@w3.org>
To: Mike Meyer <mwm@phone.net>
CC: www-talk@w3.org
Mike Meyer wrote:
> 
> :->Mike Meyer wrote:
> :->>  I want something that has the same looks and interface as a
> :->> link. [and yet invokes METHOD=POST]
> :->
> :->I suggest it would be anti-social to take this bit
> :->of user interface that everybody knows and radically
> :->change the semantics of it. Right now, everybody knows
> :->its harmless to follow a link, just like it's harmless
> :->to turn the pages of a book. It would be antisocial
> :->if, by turning to page 100, I deleted my bank account
> :->or some such.
> 
> You are absolutely correct - such usage would be antisocial. Of
> course, you can create a link that does that *RIGHT NOW*.

No, you can't. That is: you can implement that behaviour,
but it's not consistent with the HTTP 1.1 spec nor
with the expectation of lots of deployed software
and wetware (i.e. info in users' heads).

> What you
> can't do is tell the browser that this link isn't safe.

Fine by me. And you agreed that it's antisocial. Why
should we facilitate antisocial behaviour by making
HTML syntax for it? especially when we have HTML syntax
(<form method=POST>) that denotes actions like deleting
bank accounts... syntax that's widely deployed in a way
that's consistent with user expecatations.

> Like I said - the move to XML/XSL is probably going to make this
> irrelevant.

I don't see how.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 1999 03:29:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:24 GMT