- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:58:24 +0100
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Kornel Lesinski wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:04:31 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> I'd like to understand why POST was selected for that. POST is an >> unsafe method, and it shouldn't be sent without the consent of the >> user -- in particular not if the target is on a different server. > > OTOH ping is all about creating side-effects, and only non-safe methods > should cause them. > ... Following a link should not cause side effects the user (A) can be made accountable for. And, fortunately this is not the case here. The only party for which the side effect is relevant is the site owner (B), and potentially the party (C) the link points to. So, yes, if you want to design the transaction between B and C using HTTP, you wouldn't want to use a safe method. But ping communicates between A and B (or somebody specified by B), not B and C. BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2007 20:58:42 UTC