W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [Beacon] spec feedback + few suggestions

From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:48:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CADXXVKo9oV7rx0+aWdEFKaqT3SZ3bU2KRBMLbeyQ7MfdHH0Pmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Chase Douglas <chase@newrelic.com>, "Austin, Daniel" <daaustin@paypal.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
> I can live with either solution here, but GET requests are the wrong
> thing to use here per the HTTP spec. Per HTTP GET requests are not
> supposed to have side effects, and we definitely expect server to have
> side effects like logging the beacon.
> Also, GET requests aren't supposed to have a request body IIRC.

Point taken around side-effects, but there are specs, and then there is how
these tools get used in the real world..  As long as I can make a simple
GET without payload, I'm good. :)

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> Actually, if we want to add a timeout argument in the future (after
> which the beacon is dropped on the floor) that would also be a reason
> to make the last argument a dictionary for now.

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 19:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:37 UTC