Re: Feedback on the ping="" attribute (ISSUE-1)

Jon Barnett wrote:
> Thanks for the rude response.
> 
> The point I made was that the browser prompts prompts the user before
> letting them repeat an unsafe request.  That's the difference between
> GET and POST that's explicitly shown to a user - how they understand
> it is up to the browser to communite.  How that warning is worded is
> irrelevant "The page you are trying to view contains POSTDATA" or
> "Refreshing this page may perform such actions as double-charging a
> credit card." or "This page has expired" - the wording is irrelevant,
> but the point is that after the fact, when attempting to refresh the
> page or clicking the back button, the user sees a difference between a
> POST and a GET in the warning that lets them know that repeating a
> POST request may do something unwanted.  Again, the technicality of
> the warning is irrelevant as long as the repercussions are clear (and
> if they're not that's the browser's fault.)

Yes.

> And the only reason for making that point is to show why POST is
> appropriate for @ping - it performs an action that shouldn't be
> repeated by accident.  In the case of @ping, the user doesn't need to
> see a warning because the final destination was a GET request, but the
> browser knows not to repeat the POST request without explicit action
>>from the user (actually clicking the link that causes the ping).

Sorry, no. A refresh of a page doesn't constitute what HTML5 calls 
"following a hyperlink". That is, refreshing a page (or accessing it 
again through bookmarks) will never initiate the "ping", so what you say 
is not relevant for our discussion.

> ...

Best regards, Julian