- From: Soni L. <fakedme+http@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:18:24 -0300
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Evert Pot <me@evertpot.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+-cKyOnehVx4s07ECgZqoz7ARtYDgiz35+wzj3F__P9yWBQLw@mail.gmail.com>
Nope. That'll just lead to user agent sniffing, either to block the preview cards entirely or to provide the fast-path OG metadata instead of having to render the whole page anyway just for the thing to read the OG metadata (or worse, a link to the OG metadata - which would add another request and more overhead to the mix). On Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 22:28 Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > The essential aspect being missed here is that the view for a > representation isn’t known by the server. It is almost always generated > based on a combination of dynamically generated content from multiple > resources and behavior selected by the user agent. A preview is therefore > not an HTTP operation on a single resource, but rather a shared > relationship among resources based on a primary initial target resource. > > It is far easier to implement this as a separate resource on the server > that is linked rel=preview from the target, directly per resource or via a > URI template. The client can just GET that resource instead. > > ....Roy > > > On Nov 24, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Soni L. <fakedme+http@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The only acceptable alternative to making it a method would be making a > .well-known for this. That does have the issue of technically allowing POST > and all the existing headers (see below for why this is an issue). But it > would also be out of scope for http/this list, instead being covered under > (possibly?) the art list. > > And no, you absolutely do not add the ability to carry preferences or POST > to it. Because if your website's preview cards need the target website to > handle those to work properly, you're doing preview cards wrong. > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 16:54 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:26:02PM -0300, Soni L. wrote: >> > Using a new method has many benefits: >> > >> > - Forbidding a bunch of headers you don't want in a preview request >> > (Cookies, DNT, etc). >> > - Explicitly not working with older software. >> > - Being able to throw in that #anchor tag and take it into account on >> the >> > preview (useful for Wikipedia article sections). >> > - Etc. >> > >> > Aside from the thing about #anchor tags, these enable making the fast >> path >> > even faster, so it would use less resources. >> >> But it prevents one from proposing anything in between. I mean, it's >> all or nothing, and once someone starts to extend it using headers to >> indicate various preferences, you'll end up with all the details in >> the headers and two methods doing exactly the same thing. Plus having >> a GET-like method would not allow you to use POST semantics for example, >> and some could find it useful to upload an image to store it and retrieve >> a preview of it in return (for example). >> >> I too think that using header fields for this offers way more flexibility >> than a dedicated method. >> >> Regards, >> Willy >> >
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2021 03:18:49 UTC