- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:18:46 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: HTML WG List <public-html@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Finally, my understanding was that the ping URI does *not* point to >> the ad server ... > > The ping URI points to whichever server is providing the tracking > service. It may be on the same server as the page itself, it may be on > the ad server or some other third party. Where it points is entirely up > the the author. > >> (which sees the GET on the href target + the Referer header), but for >> the convenience of the site *containing* the hyperlink. > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that, the href doesn't point > the the ad server, it points the the final destination (the advertiser > in this case) and the Referer HTTP header is irrelevant. Alright, so Ad Server may be != Advertiser. That doesn't change the fact that the party implementing the "ping" resource controls what message is sent back. So if the method is GET *or* HEAD, and if the server returns an empty representation, GET and HEAD would behave exactly the same, and it would be irrelevant what is used. (this goes back to Henri's claim that using HEAD could potentially have negative impact on the Web, as people would start doing this different for HEAD than GET). BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2007 12:19:05 UTC