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

Re: [Beacon] spec feedback + few suggestions

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:18:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_ZuG4+8OYRmqi34BuVHe-hSt7nN_ZYurwGft-+P5xxzA@mail.gmail.com>
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

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