- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:18:02 -0800
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Chase Douglas <chase@newrelic.com>, "Austin, Daniel" <daaustin@paypal.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com> wrote: >> 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.. Yup. I completely agree. It still feels iffy to go against the HTTP spec as a default behavior. But I totally agree that we should enable GET-based beacons too. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 20:18:59 UTC