ISSUE-2, was: Feedback on the ping="" attribute

Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
> (On user interface:)
>>> I agree that ping="" should be made visible to users. Indeed, the spec 
>>> explicitly makes that a SHOULD, going far outside its usual boundary 
>>> of not specifying user interface requirements.
>> Currently, the standard way in HTML UAs to distinguish safe (GET) from 
>> unsafe (POST) is a link vs a button.
>> So yes, if all "audited" links turn into buttons, that concern would be 
>> dealt with. Somehow however I feel this is not what people have in mind.
> There are ways to make this visible that do not involve changing the 
> appearance of the link.


The important question is whether UA developers actually *will* come up 
with a UI for that.

So far (having only looked at FF3, are there others?) they haven't, 
which *may* indicate that this requirement is hard to implement.

>>> Indeed; and in fact part of the goal here is to make the possibly 
>>> unsafe action (user tracking and conversion tracking, with the 
>>> potential effect on future performance or the potential material 
>>> financial effect) be one that can be explicitly brought to the user's 
>>> attention if he so desires, something that is not possible in legacy 
>>> tracking techniques. (For example, using redirects make the whole 
>>> process very opaque.)
>> Following that, the spec should make any UA that makes an audited link 
>> indistinguishable from a regular link non-conforming.
> That is already the case (unless the implementor knows of "valid reasons 
> in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or 
> even useful", noting that "the full implications should be understood and 
> the case carefully weighed before implementing").

Yes. But that doesn't include reasons like

- we couldn't figure out a UI that doesn't get into the way, or

- if it doesn't behave like a regular link, click-through rates will go down


>>> We don't want to do it without the user's consent. The whole point of 
>>> making ping="" explicit is to allow the user to have the final 
>>> decision.
>> Once in the configuration, or on each navigation event? Per site?
> Presumably, such user interface details would (like all user interface 
> details) be left up to the user agent.

So let's assume one year goes by and we have several UAs shpping with 
"ping" support, none of them implementing the "should".

Would you consider the feature a failure then and remove it?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 3 November 2007 09:45:06 UTC