- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:35:01 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> Revised as requested (not sure I used the right terminology, so feel free to >>> fix it up as needed): >>> >>> The AUDITNAV method is used to report a page navigation. The Request-URI >>> represents a link auditing processor. The source and target of the page >>> navigation are reported using the Ping-From and Ping-To methods. If the >> s/methods/headers/ >> >>> Content-Type header is omitted, the body must be empty. The entity body, >> Nope. That's something which is not required in HTTP. > > Well, that's why you're the guy doing this and not me. :-) > > Let me know when I can update the spec to refer to the new method. > > Thanks for the help, Hi, I personally think the text is good enough as a starting proposal. I would recommend to put it into something reasonably self-contained, such as a separate doc, an appendix or a subsection (preference in this order). That being said, my experience with even mentioning new methods is that there'll be tons of people opposed to it; I personally would prefer to stick to GET/HEAD, but I do think a custom method will be better than POST. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 13:35:44 UTC